Page:Dictionary of National Biography. Sup. Vol III (1901).djvu/476

 and thence proceeded to Abbotsford, where she was received by Mr. Hope Scott, and was greatly interested in the memorials of Sir Walter Scott. In the study, at her host's request, she wrote her name in Scott's journal, an act of which she wrote in her diary : 'I felt it to be a presumption in me to do.' Subsequently she unveiled with some formality a memorial to the Prince Albert at Deeside, and visited the Duke of Richmond at Glenfiddich (24-7 Sept.)

Early in 1868 she accepted, for the seventh time in her experience, a new prime minister, and one with whom her intimacy was to be greater than with any of his six predecessors. In February Lord Derby resigned owing to failing health. The choice of a successor lay between Disraeli and Lord Derby's son, Lord Stanley. Disraeli's steady work for his party for a quarter of a century seemed to entitle him to the great reward, and the queen without any hesitation conferred it on him. Her relations with him had been steadily improving. Though she acknowledged that he was eccentric, his efforts to please her convinced her of his devotion to the crown. As her prime minister Disraeli from the first confirmed her good opinion of him, and by the adroitness of his counsel increased her sense of power and dignity. But his power in parliament was insecure, and she was soon brought face to face with a ministerial crisis in which he contrived that she should play not unwillingly an unwontedly prominent part.

In April Gladstone brought forward his first and main resolution in favour of the disestablishment of the Irish church. The government resisted him, and on 1 May was sharply defeated by a majority of sixty-five. Next day Disraeli went to Windsor and tendered his resignation to the queen. Personally the queen disliked Gladstone's proposal. She regarded the established church throughout her dominions as intimately associated with the crown, and interference with it seemed to her to impair her prerogative. But as a constitutional sovereign she realised that the future of the church establishment in Ireland or elsewhere was no matter for her own decision; it was for the decision of her parliament and people. In the present emergency she desired the people to have full time in which to make up their minds regarding the fate of the Irish church. If she accepted Disraeli's resignation she would be compelled to confer office on Gladstone, and her government would be committed to Irish disestablishment. Disraeli pointed out that she could at least defer the evil moment by declining to accept his resignation and by dissolving parliament. An immediate dissolution was undesirable if the appeal were to be made, as all parties wished, to the new constituencies which had been created by the late reform bill. The Scottish and Irish reform bills and the boundary bills which were required to complete that measure had yet to pass through their final stages. Consequently the queen's refusal to accept the existing government's resignation meant its continuance in office during the six months which were needed before all the arrangements for the appeal to the newly enfranchised electors could be accomplished. If the opposition failed to keep the government in power during that period, it ran the risk, in the present temper of the sovereign, of provoking a dissolution before the new electoral reform was consummated. Disraeli, while explaining the situation to the queen, left her to choose between the two possible alternatives, the acceptance of his resignation now and the appeal to the country six months later. After two days' consideration, she elected to take the second course. She was prepared to accept full responsibility for her decision, and parliament when Disraeli announced it to at will. parliament on 5 May he described, with her assent, the general drift of his negotiations with her. Grave doubts were expressed in the House of Commons as to whether his conduct was consistent with that of the ministerial adviser of a constitutional sovereign. In his first conversation with the queen he had acted on his own initiative, and had not consulted his colleagues. This self-reliance somewhat damped enthusiasm for his action in the ranks of his own party. The leaders of the opposition boldly argued that the minister was bound to offer the sovereign definite advice, which it behoved her to adopt, that the constitution recognised no power in the sovereign to exercise personal volition, and that the minister was faithless to his trust in offering her two courses and abiding by her voluntary selection of one. But the argument against the minister was pushed too far. The queen had repeatedly exerted a personal choice between accepting a dissolution and a resignation of a ministry in face of an adverse vote in the House of Commons. The only new feature that the present situation offered was Disraeli's open attribution to the queen of responsibility for the final decision. The net effect of his procedure was to bring into clearer relief than before the practi-