§ Order for Committee (Supply) read.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONI wish, Sir, to take this opportunity of making a personal explanation, rendered necessary by something that was said with respect to my conduct,—where and by whom I am not acording to the rules of the House at liberty to specify, but it is sufficient to say, by a person whose authority in this country is considerable, not longer ago than on Monday last. I have been accused of unconstitutional conduct in questioning the prerogative of the Queen to dissolve Parliament when Her advisers may think fit, and upon whatever subject they may deem it right to dissolve. Now, Sir, I never said anything that could bear that construction. No man in his senses who knows anything of the British constitution can question the prerogative of the Crown, upon the advice of responsible Ministers—because the Crown can exercise no part 1416 of its prerogative except by the advice of responsible Ministers—to dissolve Parliament at any period of the year, or in any state whatever of public business that they may think a fit opportunity of so doing. But there happened to be conditions of public business in this House at certain periods of the Session at which that advice could not be given or acted upon without throwing all the transactions, business, and services of the country into utter confusion. While the Supplies are not all voted, while no Appropriation Act has been passed, and while no financial statement has been made, it is obvious that the advisers of the Crown cannot without great inconvenience to the public service recommend the Sovereign to dissolve Parliament, and carry that recommendation into effect, unless the house of Commons makes itself a party to the transaction, accelerates its proceedings, and concurs in the temporary expedients which are necessary in order to place the public business in a position in which a dissolution would not be attended with inconvenience to the interests of the country. That is exactly the state of things in which we are now, and what I said upon a former occasion was that the advisers of the Crown could not obtain a dissolution of Parliament at the present moment without the consent and concurrence of this House. What is the other course which might have been pursued? The House of Commons might have said,—"We will not be parties to these temporary expedients; bring in all your Estimates, we are ready to discuss them; we do not mean to refuse the Supplies; bring in your Appropriation Act at the proper time; go through the business of the Session, and when it has arrived at that point at which a dissolution is practicable without interference with the public interests, of course you will then exercise, with the permission of the Sovereign, the prerogative of the Crown." What I meant to imply was, that during that delay it was possible that this House might interpose other measures—that they might address the Crown, praying that it would neither dissolve nor prorogue parliament until the House had had the opportunity of considering another Reform Bill, to be presented by the Government. They might have gone a step further, and, pending the course of public business, have addressed the Crown to dismiss the present Ministers. All these would have been perfectly constitutional proceedings, and therefore I utterly repudiate the charge that anything 1417 which I said, that any doctrine which I held, was in the slightest degree repugnant to the prerogative of the Crown, or in any degree whatever contrary to the fundamental and practical principles of the British constitution. This House has not thought fit to adopt any of the courses to which I have just referred. I certainly should not have advised it to do so. I think it far better that we should accept the challenge of Her Majesty's Ministers, and appeal to the sense of the people; and I feel perfectly confident as to the answer which will be given to that challenge. There is another point of far less importance to which also I wish to advert while I am upon my legs. My noble Friend the Member for the City of London and myself entirely concurred in the Resolution which he felt it his duty to propose; and that perfect concurrence and identity of opinion being generally known, many persons suppose that there is the same perfect identity of opinion between us in regard to that general sketch or outline of a Reform Bill which my noble Friend gave us a few nights ago. I would only say that I entirely concur with him in the principles upon which that outline is founded—namely, the reduction of the county franchise, the reduction of the borough franchise, and the transfer of seats; but, with regard to the particular limits to which in his sketch he suggested that those principles should be carried, I retain the opinions which I have expressed upon former occasions.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONSir, I cannot allow the statement of the noble Viscount to pass altogether unnoticed. He has replied to the language held in "another place" by a person whom the noble Viscount says, holds a very high position in this country. Of course there can be no misunderstanding on the part of the House to whom the noble Viscount refers, and, therefore, I think it my duty to state, so far as I am aware, what was the language of the person to whom the noble Viscount alludes. I am not of opinion that that language is at all open to the criticism which the noble Viscount has passed upon it; but the noble Viscount must bear in mind that the language so attributed to a noble Earl in "another place" was held by myself in this House—not, of course, in exactly identical terms, but certainly in terms of a very similar nature. I am very glad that the noble Viscount has offered this explanation; but I must repeat that which I ventured to ex- 1418 press on a former day, that in my humble opinion the language of the noble Viscount on the occasion referred to was not consistent with respect to the Crown, and certainly did tend, as far as it was possible for the language of a statesman in this House to tend, to call in question the prerogative of the Crown in regard to the dissolution of Parliament. I am in the recollection of those who heard what the language of the noble Viscount was, and certainly if it tended to anything, it tended to a direct threat that, in the event of any attempt by the Crown to exercise the prerogative in respect to a dissolution, the noble Viscount, and those who acted with him, would refuse those Supplies without which the noble Viscount—and so far, no doubt, he was correct in what he stated—it would be impossible, or, at all events, very inconvenient, that Her Majesty should be advised to dissolve Parliament. I think there is no man in this House who was not struck by the marked contrast between the language of the noble Viscount on the occasion to which I have referred, and that which he used on Monday evening last in answer to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Her Majesty's Ministers had recommended the dissolution of Parliament. The two speeches were as directly contrasted one with the other as it was possible for two speeches to be. When the noble Viscount used that threatening language, I was surprised that he did not bear in mind the circumstances which attended his adoption of a precisely similar course two years ago. The only difference is that then the defeat of the Government took place at the beginning of the month of March, and now it has occurred at the beginning of the month of April. The Government of the noble Viscount was defeated, a vote of censure was passed by this House, and the noble Viscount and his colleagues had the same option which Her Majesty's present advisers have had, either to tender their resignations or to recommend the exercise of the prerogative of dissolution. The noble Viscount, exercising, no doubt, his perfect right as a Minister of the Crown, advised the dissolution of Parliament, and I beg to remind him that he was met by the Opposition with no effort to withhold the Supplies. On the contrary, the Opposition of that day took the course which the noble Viscount intimated on Monday night that he should now pursue, of affording every facility for an appeal to the people. That was not the 1419 language which the noble Viscount held upon a previous occasion. His language then was threatening. I repeat, it was, in my opinion, disrespectful to the Crown. If it meant anything it threatened an attempt to impede the exercise of the prerogative. I am exceedingly glad that the noble Viscount has seen fit to alter his tone, and to hold different language. The noble Viscount says that he is not apprehensive of the result of the appeal to the people; to that I can only reply, that Her Majesty's Government anticipate the result of that appeal with equal confidence.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYSir, I do not suppose that any Member of this House would suggest a doubt of its being within the prerogative of the Crown to dissolve Parliament, but when the right hon. Baronet says that it is disrespectful to the Crown to suggest that the House of Commons will interfere between the advice of the responsible Government, upon which alone the Crown dissolves Parliament, and a dissolution, he is, I think, sacrificing the rights of the House, and stating a doctrine which ought not to pass without some comment. The right hon. Baronet must be aware that it is the constitutional privilege of this House to address the Crown upon matters of public policy and importance; and if, in the opinion of this House, great public inconvenience, great injury to the interests of this country, as well as great risk to the peace of Europe, as was suggested by Members of the Government, were likely to result from the dissolution of Parliament, it might have been the imperative duty of this House to interpose their advice between that tendered to Her Majesty by her responsible Ministers and the Act which was to follow it—namely, the dissolution of Parliament. My noble Friend suggested that it was not in the power of the Government alone to dictate what it was intimated that they intended to recommend—an immediate dissolution; and he only reminded the House that there were certain acts which must be done, before a dissolution took place, which rendered an immediate dissolution impossible, and that it was only by the concurrence of this House, by its giving the necessary facilities, that the advice which the Government might feel it their duty to give to the Sovereign could be acted upon. In that suggestion my noble Friend took perfectly constitutional ground. But the Government having recommended to the Sovereign an immediate dissolution have 1420 done it upon their own responsibility, and I think that my noble Friend and those who act with him—I think that the majority of this House have acted wisely and judiciously in leaving the responsibility of that course exclusively upon the shoulders of the Ministers. On them be the consequences which may result from the dissolution of Parliament which they have advised. As reference has been made to proceedings elsewhere, I cannot sit down without expressing my astonishment that in that place notice should, in a most irregular and unprecedented manner, have been taken of proceedings in this House, and an opinion been expressed upon them contrary to that of the highest authority in this House. It is true that we sometimes inspect the journals of the other House of Parliament, and I have no doubt that Members of that House sometimes inspect ours, and by that means information is obtained as to what is passing within the walls of the other House; but this is the first time that I have ever heard any person holding the position occupied by the noble Peer who has been referred to openly criticise in that place the proceedings of this House, and take upon himself to cite authorities with respect to them which this House does not in the slightest degree recognize. I am glad to hear the right hon. Baronet say that the dissolution which has been advised in this case, and that which took place in 1857, stand upon exactly the same grounds. The issue in that case was a definite one. There was a vote of the House of Commons upon a particular question of policy, upon which my noble Friend advised the Crown that a dissolution might take place with a view to an appeal to the country. That appeal was distinctly answered. I only hope than on the present occasion the issue will he as clearly understood; and that, the House of Commons having by an adverse vote condemned two of the main features of the Bill for amending the representation of the people submitted to the House of Commons by the Government, we shall have the opinion of the country and of the constituencies upon that measure.
§ COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that although no one would question the power of the Government to advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, it was equally well understood that it was not justifiable for them to take that course unless they had some hope of a majority being returned to sup- 1421 port their opinions. That was now the point of difference. That was the point which the Government would have to answer immediately upon the return of the new Parliament. It was strange that the First Lord of the Admiralty, who had accused the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton of indirect disrespect to Her Majesty, should have overlooked the direct disrespect of which the noble Earl at the head of the Government had been guilty in stating elsewhere that he would not under any circumstances recommend that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London should be charged with the formation of a Ministry, and that there was an hon. Member of that House representing the people with whom, under no circumstances, would Her Majesty have anything to do. What was that but a direct act of disrespect towards the House of Commons?
§ MR. MALINSsaid, there was one thing which had given him extreme satisfaction in the course of this discussion, and that was the extraordinary uneasiness which was manifested by hon. Gentlemen opposite at the prospect of the impending dissolution. Hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House were last week exceedingly bold and defiant with respect to Her Majesty's advisers recommending a dissolution of Parliament. Some hon. Members said that such a step was not to be thought of, whilst others boasted that they were perfectly indifferent about it. But once that a dissolution was resolved upon the cry was raised that it was unconstitutional, and that the advice which Ministers had given to the Crown was not in accordance with the first principles of the English constitution. The House might now judge what that assumed indifference meant. The noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton, in language of defiance so strong that, to his (Mr. Malins') mind, it was only comprehensible upon the assumption that the noble Viscount was in earnest, and intended to follow up his threat, had dared Her Majesty's Ministers to recommend a dissolution, and said that there must be no dissolution, because the House in the present state of public affairs could not be dissolved, and that he would take care that the Supplies which were necessary should not be forthcoming. If the noble Viscount was in earnest on that point why had he not followed it up? But instead of that he had contracted himself down to very small dimensions indeed. And how was that to be accounted for? Was it that the majority on which he 1422 had counted had melted away to too small dimensions? He (Mr. Malins), for his part, would say that he had been accustomed to look upon the noble Viscount as a man who in an emergency might be relied upon to support the principles of the English constitution, and though he did not agree in the whole of his policy there was no man of his party whom he should be more inclined to follow. He was, therefore, greatly disappointed to find the noble Lord on the present occasion disposed to adopt such extreme principles.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he rose to order. A number of hon. Gentlemen had given notice of their intention to make Motions on going into Committee of Supply, and it was not fair that other questions should take precedence. He wished, therefore to inquire whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was not out of order in making observations on such a subject.
§ MR SPEAKERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly in order.
§ MR. MALINSAs the hon. Baronet on the other side of the House, in his speech of triumph, had alluded to the issue now before the country, and the issue put before the country in 1857, he (Mr. Malins) could only hope that the issue which was put before the country by the noble Lord the Member for London and the noble Viscount opposite would be distinctly understood. The noble Lord the Member for London had told the House what his Reform Bill was to be; but was the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton inclined to adopt that Bill? He had not the good fortune to hoar the noble Lord, but he understood that he had said that he was not for that Bill; and unless the reports which had reached him greatly deceived him the noble Lord had expressed himself to the effect that whenever the Bill sketched by the noble Lord the Member for the City was brought in he should be found among its most strenuous opponents. Upon that point the noble Viscount seemed to be somewhat ambiguous. What then was the issue tendered by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton? The noble Lord, in his own case, took the opportunity of dissolving, and if they now tendered issue, the noble Lord must accept it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, even if they were in a state that by the union of parties not agreeing among themselves they could out number the Government, might yet find that there was no wish on the part of the majority for the retirement of the Government. This 1423 was a vote of confidence, and not one merely on the provisions of the Reform Bill. He would inquire of hon. Gentlemen opposite what would be their point of union if the noble Lord the Member for London came into office? Would they give way upon the Ballot? If they did they must compromise their principles, and if they did not he should like to know what prospect they had of retaining power. But he had too high an opinion of the noble Lord to think that he would become an advocate of the Ballot. But if the Government were turned out what would become of the principle of union? Hon. Gentlemen who sat below the gangway on the other side had said that unless the Ballot were offered it would be in vain to rely upon their support. If so, supposing the noble Lord to come into office, there would be as great difficulty in carrying on the Government as ever. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) had taunted the Government on their course. Now, he (Mr. Malins) represented a small borough, but it included a widespread area, and contained a great variety of voters. He had stood two very severe contests for it, and on the last occasion he had had to contend with the strong impression on the minds of a large portion of the electors that the noble Member for Tiverton was the only man who could carry on the war satisfactorily. But the country might now see that it was perfectly plain that the question now before them was capable of easy settlement. The points of difference between the noble Lord opposite and that (the Ministerial) side of the House were so small that they might have been capable of easy settlement, and the dissolution might have been avoided. Thus the confusion into which the affairs of the country must be thrown by a general election might have been avoided, which would have been especially desirable at a time when union, strength, and tranquillity were so much needed. The necessity of a dissolution had, however, been forced upon the Government. It was remarkable that this disturbance did not arise from the country operating upon the House of Commons, but from the House of Commons operating upon the country. He hoped that the attempt that had been made would signally fail, and it was in vain for the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman to think that hon. Members on his side of the House were to be intimidated by any threats on their part.
SIR GEORGE LEWISSir, there has been throughout our recent debates a constant, an unfair, and, I trust, a wholly unsuccessful attempt to fix upon this side of the House the responsibility of the present state of affairs. The remarks which have just been made by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford would almost lead the House to suppose that it is my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton and the hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side who have advised the dissolution of Parliament and who are responsible for that important step. But observe what has been the course of the Government upon this subject. On acceding to power last year they took the Government, according to the expression of my noble Friend, with its engagements. I must be permitted to remark, however, that it is a perfectly new and not generally accepted doctrine that an Opposition, when it comes into office, abandons its own engagements and adopts those of its antagonists. However, without dwelling upon that part of the subject, I shall only say that Ministers voluntarily undertook the engagement of bringing in a Reform Bill. They renewed that engagement on various occasions by declarations of individual Members of the Government during the recess, and they announced in the Speech from the Throne their intention of introducing a measure of Reform. After mature deliberation that Bill was brought forward. It was made the subject of a long and able debate, and by the solemn judgment of this House it was condemned as unsatisfactory. In consequence of the adverse decision of this House they abandoned their Bill; but they do not announce that they will bring in any other measure, on the contrary, they state that in the present year it is not their intention to propose any other measure of Reform, and they appeal to the country against the decision of this House. Now, is that not a distinct appeal upon the measure of the Government? Upon what possible question can it be an appeal if not upon their Reform policy, upon their recent Bill, and against the adverse decision of the House in connection therewith? They do not substitute any other measure, and still less do they state what that measure is to be; they simply appeal against the decision of the House, and that decision was pronounced upon their existing Reform Bill. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: It was a refusal to entertain the question.] The decision of the House was pronounced upon 1425 the two most important characteristics of the Bill. Those two points were selected for the decision of the House, and upon those two main points, which included the most essential principles of the Bill, the House decided against the Government. Observe what was the conduct of Earl Grey's Government in 1831, when they appealed to the country upon the subject of their Reform Bill. That is the case which is most exactly in point. Earl Grey's Government brought in a Bill that was condemned by the House of Commons by a considerable majority. The course pursued then was very similar to that which has been taken in the present instance. Upon going into Committee a Resolution was moved, condemning one of the most important parts of the Bill, and it was carried, as I have said, by a considerable majority. The Government never for a moment pretended to say that that was not a condemnation of their Bill. They stood by the Bill; they went to the country upon the well-known cry, "The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." No other issue was raised; the country pronounced in their favour, and its representatives came to this House, knowing what they had promised to vote upon. A dissolution is now about to take place. I want to know upon what it is to take place. Up to the present moment no issue has been raised either here or elsewhere beyond this—that the country is asked to express its confidence in the Government, in consequence of the policy which they have adopted on the subject of Reform. Can they put any other issue before the country? Can they say that they ask the confidence of the people in respect of a policy which they are about to pursue upon the subject of Reform? No such thing. Here is their Bill; it was condemned more or loss by every hon. Member who spoke in the recent debate, whether on this or the other side of the House, and upon its merits Ministers appeal to the country. Some hon. Members, indeed, condemned the form of the Resolution, but there was scarcely a single Member on cither side of the House who expressed a decided approbation of the general form and character of the Bill. What possible issue, therefore, is raised which does not involve their Reform policy? Surely Her Majesty's Ministers do not go to the country simply upon the question whether they shall retain their offices. That is not a question upon which an appeal can be made to the 1426 constituencies. Some principle—something beyond a mere vague expression of confidence—must be implied in an appeal. Gentlemen on this side are not responsible for the step about to be taken. A Bill was submitted for our consideration, and we rejected it. We have been told that in doing so we showed a want of respect to the Crown. Observe what hon. Gentlemen opposite did last year with respect to the India Bill. A recommendation from the Crown was made to this House to consider the question of India. The Government prepared a Bill carrying that recommendation into effect, and what was the course pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite? Why, they would not allow us even to read the Bill a first time, and they met us by a Resolution precisely similar to that to which so much objection has been lately taken. The only distinction, in fact, between the two cases is, that in the one they even refused to allow the Government to lay their Bill on the table, while in the other we reserved our opposition to the second reading, the proper time for it. To say, after a debate of seven nights, which was virtually a debate upon the second reading of the Bill, the measure has not received consideration, and that we have been guilty of disrespect to the Crown, is one of the most monstrous attempts at imposing upon the credulity of the country which my Parliamentary experience can furnish. We have merely exercised our constitutional right to consider and reject a measure proposed, not by the Crown, but by the Government, whose acts we are at liberty to canvass and criticise in every possible way. Upon them lies the responsibility of the Bill itself and of the dissolution which they have recommended, and the real issue which the country has to decide is—does the Reform policy of the Government, as expressed in that Bill, entitle them to the confidence of the public?
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONThe right hon. Gentleman appears to be labouring under a misapprehension as to what fell from me upon a former occasion. I never said anything so absurd as that any want of respect was shown to the Crown in not entertaining the Reform Bill; but I did say, that the language of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, on the subject of a dissolution, trenched upon the Royal prerogative, and was wanting in respect to the Crown.
SIR GEORGE LEWISI did not refer 1427 to the remark of the right hon. Baronet, [that the language held by my noble Friend on the subject of a dissolution was disrespectful to the Crown. What I alluded to was an expression used both here and elsewhere, to the effect that we showed a want of respect to the Crown in not entertaining the measure of Reform proposed by the Government. Such an expression was used, and I repeat it is entirely erroneous.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he was one of those fortunate Members who had caught the eye of the right hon. Gentleman during the recent debates, and consequently he had already had the opportunity of communicating his sentiments to the House on the subject of Reform, and was not going to discuss the question again then. He could, however, make allowance for the ardour of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), who had not enjoyed the same opportunity; but he must protest against that hon. and learned Member robbing the printers of Wallingford by making addresses in that House to his constituents. He thought they had had enough of Reform discussions, and had now better leave the battle to be fought out on the hustings. It was natural that the noble Lord should wish to make an explanation, but it would be of no use discussing the question further in a moribund Parliament. He was glad the Government had determined to dissolve, because he thought that a general election would put parties on a better footing. The object of his rising, however, was to ask a question. He wished to know whether it was true that the Government had appointed an hon. Member of that House to the vacant judgeship in the Irish Incumbered Estates Court, contrary to the report of the Commissioners.
§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he begged to inform the hon. Member that a Judge had been appointed to the Incumbered Estates Court in Ireland, and that the Judge so appointed was an hon. Member of that House.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he wished to know whether there had been a decrease of business in the Court.
§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTreplied that he could say nothing on that subject, but if the hon. Member would put a notice of his question upon the paper, he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) would answer it on a future day. As to the course that had been taken since Monday last by the 1428 noble Lord, with respect to Supply, the Government did not complain of it; on the contrary, they thought that his willingness in facilitating proceedings so as to help forward the dissolution, was in conformity with his conduct during a long life passed in the service of his country, and with the policy they had themselves adopted under similar circumstances. He (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), however, could not help remarking on the tone of the speech which was delivered by the noble Lord in the course of the discussion. He would not undertake to say whether the expressions commented on were exactly those used by the noble Lord, but the tone which the noble Lord adopted in the course of the debate upon the Bill lately thrown out was that of absolute defiance. It was a defiance founded, as it seemed to him, on the idea that it was absolutely impossible for the Government to have recourse to the alternative of a dissolution. The noble Lord recommended to them a course which he would not have followed—a course of conduct which, as a gentleman, he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), for one, should not feel himself justified in adopting, and a course which he did not believe any of the sections into which the House was split, if any of them had been placed on the Treasury bench, would for one moment have thought of following. He must say, that he was not surprised that—when, like two adversaries about to retire for a moment, they were about to collect their forces for the battle—when the noble Lord, too, knew that the grave responsibility of the Government had been increased by what had occurred—there should be an attempt to fasten responsibility from one side of the House to the other; but he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) thought, with the hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. Bernal Osborne) that they might very well adjourn this question to the hustings. The right hon. Member for Radnor (Sir George Lewis) when he appeared before his constituents, would probably put the issue as he had already stated it, and no doubt he would call upon them to give him their support. The Government alleged, however, that they were defeated in an attempt to carry through a Reform Bill, and were prevented from the fair consideration of the question by a combination of parties. They did not accept their defeat as a defeat of their measure, but simply as an interruption of the proceedings of the Government, and as a proof that Government 1429 did not possess that which they never supposed themselves to possess—the implicit confidence of a majority of the House. The real question at issue for the country to consider was, whether the Government of the country should be carried on by the present advisers of Her Majesty, or whether power should be transferred to other hands. The Government had done their duty conscientiously and under a deep sense of responsibility, and it would be for Parliament, when it should re-assemble, to determine whether right rested with the Government or with those who impugned their policy.
§ MR. LINDSAYsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had complained of several votes which had been given by hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. Now, if the recent question had been as to the conduct of the present Administration, he for one would not have voted against them. For, so far as he could judge, they had conducted the business of the country well and wisely. He must, however, state that the issue before the country would not be "confidence or not in their administration of affairs." The Government had laid upon the table of the House a Bill which he (Mr. Lindsay) believed to be erroneous in principle and crude in its construction. The time to deal with the fundamental principles of the Bill was upon the second reading, and he had no other course left to him but to support the Resolution of the noble Lord, and with regret he did support it, because he thought it would lead to the overthrow of a Government which in more than one respect possessed his perfect confidence.