BEARDING THE LION 123
the implicit condemnation of Lord Palmerston and
Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who have hitherto opposed
the scheme. It would seem as if Providence had set
itself to inflict upon them the chastisement which they
deserve, by making them, so to speak, responsible before
public opinion for the difficulties which their country
is experiencing in putting an end to the calamities
which are so preying upon its interests, its affections,
and its power. . . . Lord Palmerston and Lord Stratford
de Redcliffe have not seen or foreseen anything of this.
. , . Lulled by a false sense of security, they have yielded
to their inclination for making themselves disagreeable
to others."
But the end of British Government opposition was
not yet. On several occasions during the next year
both under Lord Palmerston's and Lord Derby's
administrations the subject was brought before Parlia-
ment. There was even a full-dress debate in the
House on June ist, 1858, when sixty-two members
voted in support of Mr. Roebuck's motion in favour of
the canal. Royalty also discussed the Suez Canal pro-
ject. During the visit of the Emperor Napoleon and
his consort to Queen Victoria at Osborne a special con-
ference was held attended by Lord Palmerston and
Count Walewski. The decision reached was that both
France and Britain should maintain a neutral attitude.
But that was just what the British Government had no
intention of doing, and had not done all along. The
pressure on the Sultan to disown the scheme was con-
tinued and, if possible, intensified, so that it seemed
as if the Porte was a vassal of England, and that
England's consent was necessary before Turkey could