speech of firmness and moderation he expressed his intention of proceeding with the other measures, and to

wait and see whether we have mistaken the intention of our opponents, instead of adopting that decided course which it would afterwards be shown we were not justified in pursuing . . . It is essential . . . that the majority of the House of Commons should remain firmly united together on the present occasion; and I think I may say that if the supporters of the present Administration continue their present confidence in it, with such support, and with such a majority, the Ministry will not desert them.

A contemporary critic complained with some reason that this promise of Lord John's did not correspond with the declaration which he had made before Easter. On the former occasion he had declared the Municipal Bill to be vital; on the latter, he promised to go on so long as the Administration was supported by the House of Commons. And, in the abstract, Mr. Greville was right in his criticism.3 The grounds on which the Ministry had taken its stand were shifted. But no practical importance attaches to the distinction. Few even of those who condemn the Whigs for clinging to office would contend that any cause for resignation had yet arisen. The defeat of the Municipal Bill might have necessitated, its postponement would not have justified, their resignation.

The attitude of the Peers was, however, alarming, because it indicated the sense which they entertained of the weakness

1 Hansard, xxxvii. 1085.

2 Hansard, xxxviii. 696.

3 Greville, iii. 397. The Prime Minister was opposed to resignation. He wrote to Lord John (April 1, 1837): 'I have only two scruples about resigning: one lest we should bring about a state of things in which it is difficult to form a Government; and the other lest our own friends should be discontented with us, and hold us to have abandoned them. The first, perhaps, is a chimerical fear, and one which vanity and self-opinion very much ministers to, and therefore not to be entertained. But I, being somewhat of an alarmist on this side, not having quite the confidence in the stability of popular and constitutional forms of government which others have, and thinking them very likely to break up of themselves, and from the exaggeration of their own principles, cannot feel quite free from it. The second is a very material consideration. I should be very desirous of carrying with us in our move the feelings of those who have supported us.' Is it not probable that Lord John spoke his own mind on April 11, and the Prime Minister's mind on May 8?

of the Government. And this weakness became more apparent after a short Whitsuntide recess. For, on the 23rd of May, 'the House of Commons, renewing the consideration of Mr. Spring Rice's resolutions on church rates, only passed them by a slender majority of five-a division which, the King wrote next day

makes it obvious, as observed by Lord John Russell, that no Bill on the subject can be expected to pass during the present session.

The House of Commons was, therefore, withdrawing the support which Lord John had declared would enable the Administration to maintain its ground; and a fresh reason for retirement had consequently arisen.

Yet, neither after this vote, nor after the renewed postponement of the Municipal Bill in the Lords, did the Ministers retire. Circumstances, in fact, made it impossible for them to resign. For, in the middle of May, the King was seriously indisposed. On the last day of May, indeed, he was well enough to sign a letter, which he addressed to Lord John, stating his gratification at the feeling which prevailed in the country on the subject of his health, and announcing his gradual recovery. But Lord John received no further letter from him. A week later the King was so much weaker that Sir Herbert Taylor took upon himself the responsibility of withholding important business from him. From that time he gradually sank; and, on the 20th of June, he died.

The death of William IV. and the accession of Queen Victoria to the throne had a decisive effect on the fortunes of Lord John Russell and of the Melbourne Administration. Though, so far as Lord John was concerned, the King's distrust had long given way to confidence, and Monarch and Minister regarded one another with respect and affection, there could be no doubt that the death of the King had removed one difficulty from the path of the Administration. It was unlikely that the new Queen would share the prejudices of the old sovereign, and regard the Radical support which was essential to the existence of the Ministry as an adequate reason for its overthrow. The commencement of a new reign

moreover necessitated an appeal to the electors, and afforded the Ministers an opportunity of determining whether they did, or did not, enjoy the confidence of the country.

Under these circumstances there was no longer any question about the resignation of Ministers. The fate of the Government depended not on the fortunes of a measure, but on the verdict of the country; and the men whose business it was to know thought that the ten-pound householders were on the side of the Whigs. Mr. Stanley, the Secretary to the Treasury, wrote on the 5th of July—

As far as I can at present calculate, I think we shall gain by the dissolution to the extent of twenty-five or thirty, but still it is as yet uncertain what turn public feeling will take. It is decidedly in our favour. . . . In Ireland we shall, I think, gain eight, perhaps twelve ; in Scotland two; in England from fifteen to twenty.

But these sanguine anticipations were not destined to be fulfilled. The great body of the electors disliked the Poor Law; and, to its credit, the Government firmly adhered to that measure. The Church threw in its lot against a party which had dared to propose the abolition of church rates. These and other circumstances militated against the Whigs. The Tories in the new Parliament mustered a compact force of at least 316 members; they commanded the votes of nearly one half of the House of Commons.

The failure which the Whigs experienced in many parts of England did not happily affect the issue at Stroud. Serjeant Adams, a Tory lawyer, who ventured on appealing to the electors, experienced a decisive defeat; and the two old members, Mr. Poulett Scrope and Lord John, were returned by a large majority. Liberal Stroud celebrated the victory by a great banquet at which Lord John occupied the place of honour on the chairman's right, and delivered a speech which soon became famous.

The rule of Tory Ministries in this country was neither short in its duration nor limited in its extent . . . and I ask you whether it be not a fair statement to say that they did many things which were

Writing to the Queen on August 15, 1837, Lord John put the result as 340 Ministerial, 313 Opposition, 5 doubtful.

evil; [and] that they left undone many things which were good and practicable? . . . In no very long period of years they increased the debt of this country from 250,000,000l. to 800,000,000l. ; they imposed most burdensome taxes upon the people . . . they depreciated the currency . . . they effected also a union with Ireland-not a union of the interests, of the feelings, and of the affections of the people of England and Ireland, but a union bought with money... besides honours and titles lavished without stint. [But it was argued that the Tories had now become Conservatives, and, as such, were entitled to their respect.] If they say that the distinction of Whig and Tory should no longer be kept up, I am ready, in opposition to their name of Conservative, to take the name of Reformer, and to stand by that designation. [In all times and in all countries there have been Reformers and Conservatives.] What was Luther? Luther was a Reformer; Leo X., who opposed the Reformation, was a Conservative. What was Galileo? Galileo, in astronomy and in science, was a Reformer; the Inquisition, who put him into prison, was Conservative. The Christians, who suffered martyrdom in Rome, were Reformers; Nero, who put these Christians to death, was a Conservative.

But, though Lord John thus took his stand on Reform, and endeavoured in doing so to coin a new name for his party, he was careful to define his own position.

I am perfectly aware that it has been said that the real fault of the Ministry was that they did not go far and fast enough that they ought to propose vote by ballot, triennial Parliaments, household suffrage, and an elective House of Lords. . . . I must declare to you freely and frankly that I see no sufficient cause for altering the ancient constitution of this country . . . and that by that constitution I for one am prepared to abide. If others think differently from me let them stand the risk of making the experiments they desire to see tried; but they cannot, I think, call upon me, holding the opinions I have stated, to maintain otherwise than I have done, that the ancient constitution of Crown, Lords, and Commons, is capable of upholding, and well calculated to uphold, that which we all desire to see upheld-the prosperity and the liberty of this great empire.

It would hardly have done for the leader of the Reformers to end with a Conservative sentiment. Lord John dexterously made the accession of a new Queen the pretext for referring to the reforms which he desired to see accomplished.

In a passage which was prophetic in the truest sense of the term he went on-

We have had glorious female reigns. Those of Elizabeth and Anne led us to great victories. Let us now hope that we are going to have a female reign illustrious in its deeds of peace-an Elizabeth without her tyranny, an Anne without her weakness. Let us put up a prayer that the illustrious princess, who has just ascended the throne with the purest intentions and the justest desires, may have the good fortune to see slavery entirely abolished; crime, while it is seldom visited by the dreadful punishment of death, diminished by the operation of better laws and improved institutions; let us hope that she may have the consolation of seeing her people better educated -deriving their strength, deriving their conduct, deriving their loyalty, from enlightened religious and moral principles. . . . So strengthened, I trust that we may succeed in making the reign of Victoria celebrated among the nations of the earth, and to all posterity, and that 'England may not forget her precedence of teaching the nations how to live.'1

No Hebrew seer ever made a bolder or truer prediction. Prophet and monarch both lived to see the fulfilment of the prophecy; and among the many great men who laboured to accomplish it, none worked harder or strove more successfully than Lord John.

The new Parliament did not meet till November 15. The interval Lord John passed at Endsleigh, gaining, by fresh air and exercise, health for the coming struggle. During much of the time the Prime Minister was at Windsor, discharging deliberately and intentionally the functions of private secretary to the Queen as well as of Prime Minister. During that time he was in almost daily communication with Lord John, and deprecating in his letters the extensive changes which

I have placed the concluding words within inverted commas, as they are, I believe, taken from Milton.

2 Mr. Torrens seems to be unaware of Lord Melbourne's strong feelings on this point. But Lord Melbourne wrote to Lord John in reference to an attack of Lord Brougham's upon him: 'It appears to me to be highly to be desired upon constitutional grounds that the Queen should not have a private secretary. To obviate this necessity it is absolutely required that the Minister should be always near her, and it appears to me to be hardly fair or just that this should be represented as the result of a love of Court favour.' (December 17, 1837.)