for thus coming to their aid as it was called, and concerting such a measure (as he was accused of doing) with Disraeli himself. The 'Times' attacked him with the utmost bitterness, and there is a general clamour against him on the part of the late Government and their friends. It is not very easy to divine his true motives in this matter. To judge by the asperity with which he has spoken of the Government bill, one should not suppose he could be moved by any auxiliary purpose to them, and I do not believe there has been any concert, direct or indirect, between them; but as all parties agree that the Government have derived advantage from his move, the rage he has excited is not unreasonable, and the breach between him and the Palmerstonian Whigs is much widened, and become more difficult to heal. Granville, who I suppose speaks the sentiments of his colleagues, says that it is evident they could not return to office with the _same_ Government exactly as before, and that it is not desirable to turn the Government out at present, even if they could, and he thinks it would not be wise to attempt to carry Palmerston's India Bill, in which it is not sure they should succeed. He thinks there _was_ concert between Lord John and Disraeli, not direct, but through Horsman, and he says that George Lewis, so far from approving his Resolutions, strongly protested against them; but it is not impossible to reconcile two statements which seem at first sight to be directly opposed to each other. Lord John says he imparted to George Lewis and Macaulay his _scheme_ (i.e. of drawing up Resolutions), not the Resolutions themselves, while George Lewis seems to deny approval of the Resolutions; but this is only a possible solution of the apparent contradictions. I told Granville that all that was now happening only served to confirm my original opinion, that they were wrong in resigning, and that there was no occasion for their doing so, and they now saw how difficult it was, when they had let this Government in, to get them out again, and he not only had not a word to say in reply, but all he did was rather indicative of concurrence in my opinion. In the most palmy days of party government, and when the old traditions with regard to the relations of Government with the House of Commons were in full force, it was not considered as an invariable and unavoidable necessity that a Government when beaten on an important question must go out. I recollect the Government of the day in 1815 being beaten on the Income Tax, without therefore resigning, and it is so obvious that the vote on the French despatch did not imply any general withdrawal of confidence and support, that I never shall believe they would have resigned as they did unless they had thought they should gain more strength and power by doing so without losing their places, and consequently that they were caught in a trap of their own setting. [Sidenote: MR. DISRAELI'S BUDGET.]