'there must be a new departure taken, with a better crew on board the Government vessel, and an avowed and definite destination in view.' 1

Lord John was at least as conscious as other persons of the necessity both of a new departure and of additional allies. Yet he was not responsible for the failure of the Government to embark on large measures, or to obtain extraneous support. He had been thwarted by his colleagues in his desire to introduce a fresh Reform Bill in 1849; he had failed to secure the help which he had over and over again sought from the followers of Sir Robert Peel. Four days after the session was over, he endeavoured to supply one deficiency by drawing up an outline of a fresh Reform Act. Before four weeks were over, he made another attempt to secure the presence of Sir James Graham in the Cabinet.

The progress of ideas on the subject of Parliamentary Representation has been so rapid that schemes of Reform propounded a generation ago are only the dry bones of history. It is hardly worth while to publish at length the elaborate memorandum which Lord John drew up on August 12, 1851. In this minute he proposed the semi-disfranchisement of either twenty, thirty, or forty of the smallest boroughs-the exact number to be determined afterwards- the allotment of their members in equal proportions to the most populous counties and the largest towns; the reduction of the county franchise to 20/., of the borough franchise to 5, rateabie value; the formation of various trades and professions into guilds, whose members should have a right to choose two or three of their number to vote at the election of a member for the borough in which they resided; the abolition of the property qualification of members of Parliament; and the repeal of the provision which made it necessary for a member of Government exchanging one office for another to undergo re-election. This proposal, forwarded to the Queen on the 12th of August, was carefully criticised by Prince Albert, and subsequently submitted to the Cabinet. Objections were raised to the curious provision for representing trades; and this part of the scheme was omitted from it. On the recom1 The opinion is Mr. Coblen's. See his Life, vol. ii. p. 91. VOL. II.

K

mendation of Sir C. Wood the disfranchising clauses of the Bill were also omitted, and the Cabinet decided to throw some neighbouring towns into all boroughs having less than 500 electors. The Bill was ultimately introduced by Lord John in this shape at the commencement of the session of 1852. But the discussions upon it had very nearly led to the disruption of the Ministry. Lord Palmerston was anxious that boroughs having more than 300 electors should be left undisturbed. Lord Lansdowne strongly objected to 'tying places together more or less distant and wholly unconnected with each other.' He refused to be responsible for such a proposal, and left it to Lord John to determine whether he should resign at once, or when the Bill was finally matured, or when it was brought up to the House of Lords.' He was ultimately prevailed upon to withdraw his resignation on finding that any other course would cause an immediate dissolution of the Government; '2 and the Cabinet, therefore, was ultimately able to produce its measure without giving overt evidence of an irreconcilable difference of opinion. This circumstance was the more fortunate because the Cabinet had again failed to obtain extraneous assistance. An overture to Sir James Graham, which Lord John made in September 1851, and an attempt to obtain the Duke of Newcastle's services in January 1852, proved equally unsuccessful; and in the interval the crisis had occurred which had led to Lord Palmerston's abrupt dismissal from the Foreign Office. It

3

1 The letter in which this paragraph occurs almost verbatim is only dated Sunday. It refers to a letter as 'written not long since,' which bears date November 23. It was probably written early in December. The paragraph in the ensuing letter, in which Lord Lansdowne announces the withdrawal of his resignation, was addressed to Prince Albert on January 22, 1852.

2 On the 8th of December Lord John had told Lord Lansdowne, 'I do not see any chance of carrying the Bill as a Minister without your assistance. If, therefore, you insist on resigning, I shall tender my resignation along with yours and propose the plan agreed to by the Cabinet as a private member of Parliament.'

3 It is hardly necessary to give the particulars of these negotiations. That with Sir James Graham has already been correctly related by Mr. Greville, Memoirs, Pt. II. vol. iii. p. 412. That with the Duke of Newcastle will also be found ibid. p. 436; and it is only necessary to add to it that the office which was proposed to the Duke was the Irish Viceroyalty, from which Lord Clarendon had been for some months anxious to retire.

may be desirable, before relating this history, to trace Lord John's movements in the previous autumn.

When Parliament adjourned in the middle of August 1851, the family at Pembroke Lodge was in some anxiety. Lord John's second step-daughter, who afterwards became Mrs. Warburton, had for many months shown symptoms of great delicacy, and her medical advisers insisted on her leaving England and on passing the winter in a warmer climate. She and her sister (Lady Melvill) and a French lady, engaged as their companion, sailed in September, and were ultimately joined by their brother, Lord Ribblesdale, in Italy. During the sixteen years which had elapsed since his first marriage, Lord John had known no such parting from his first wife's children. The reason which had necessitated it made it the more painful; and perhaps on this account, as well as for the sake of the change which he sorely needed, he carried his wife and four of his own children with him to North Wales. Lady John shall tell the story :

September 15.-We, and four of our children, set out for a little tour in Wales. First day to Bangor : after which our resting-places were Llanberis, Beddgelert, Tan-y-bwlch, and Capel Curig, a few days being spent at each, then [Sept. 30] beautiful drive to Llanrwst, where we changed horses: there found great crowd, bells ringing, and loud hurrahs, which gave me a good opinion of the Llanrwstians. Got here [Rhyl] at six ; found an evergreen arch erected for us at the inn gate. Next day we drove to Penywern to call on Lord Mostyn, one of John's staunchest supporters; stopping on the way to see Rhuddlan Castle; also saw the remains of the house in which Edward I. passed the Statute of Rhuddlan, securing to the Welsh their judicial rights and independence. Lord Mostyn and about. twenty gentlemen came with addresses to John from Rhyl and St. Asaph. Next day we went to St. Asaph to lunch with the Bishop [Short], who took us a lovely drive to Denbigh, where we got out to see the castle, and John was received with ringing of bells and loud cheers. Oct. 11 we arrived at Pembroke Lodge. So happy to be here again, with all our old interests and the new one of the school, that I no longer regret Snowdon and the sea.

Lord John, however, was already meditating a more important journey. Years had passed since he had visited Paris, which had once been such familiar ground to him; and

in the course of October he decided on crossing to France and paying a short visit to Lord Normanby. Lord Palmerston, writing to him on the 21st of October, urged him to put off his excursion, or, at any rate, to ask Louis Napoleon whether such a visit would be inconvenient, and whether he would prefer the Prime Minister coming at some quieter time. Lord John took the latter course; and the President sent him, on the 30th of October, a message through Lord Normanby to say that he would be very glad to see him. Things, however, moved rapidly in Paris: the Chamber declared 'open war,' to use Lord Normanby's phrase, against the President; and Lord John, fearing to mix himself up in the internal politics of France, wrote to Lord Normanby and put off his visit. The state of affairs in Paris amply justified his decision, which a new crisis in the Cabinet at home would under any circumstances have necessitated.

For a few weeks after the issue of the Queen's memorandum in August 1850, the relations between the Foreign Office and the Court had been a little happier. But the autumn had not far advanced before the old difficulty recurred. Lord Palmerston sent an unauthorised despatch to Baron Koller, the Austrian Ambassador; and was forced by Lord John, after a sharp and disagreeable controversy, in which Lord Palmerston threatened to resign, to withdraw his letter. The Queen watched this controversy with the more anxiety because Prince Albert differed radically from Lord Palmerston's policy on the dispute which had arisen between Germany and Denmark respecting Schleswig-Holstein. It is necessary to defer to a later chapter the history of this complicated negotiation. It is sufficient here to say that the Queen, throughout the controversy, condemned the conduct of Denmark and disapproved the policy which Lord Palmerston pursued.

It is needless, therefore, to say that throughout the autumn of 1850 and the whole of 1851 the difficulty which had only been temporarily terminated in the former year was constantly recurring. On Thursday, October 23, 1851, M. Kossuth, who had been the soul of the Hungarian uprising, landed at Southampton; and it was demi-officially announced, to the

Queen's intense but natural annoyance, that Lord Palmerston intended to receive him. Lord John urged Lord Palmerston not to do so, and, failing to prevail with him, wrote as follows:

Pembroke Lodge: October 30, 1851. My dear Palmerston,-I must once more press upon you my views concerning an interview with Kossuth.

I wrote to you some time ago that I hoped you would not see him.

I wrote to you afterwards from Windsor Castle that I thought your seeing him would be improper and unnecessary.

I wrote to you again yesterday to say that I thought that, if upon his first arrival he had asked to see you to express through you his thanks to the Queen's Government for the efforts made by them for his safety and liberation, and you had at once seen him, it might have been thought a natural proceeding. But that, after his denunciations of two sovereigns with whom the Queen is on terms of peace and amity, an interview with you would have a very different complexion.

The more I think on the matter, the more I am confirmed in this view.

It might have been right-although we did not think so-to interfere in the war waged by Russia in Hungary. But it cannot be right that any member of the Administration should give an implied sanction to an agitation, commenced by a foreign refugee, against sovereigns in alliance with her Majesty.

I must therefore positively request that you will not receive Kossuth, and that, if you have appointed him to come to you, you will inform him that any communication must be in writing, and that you must decline to see him.-Yours faithfully,

Lord Palmerston replied-

J. RUSSELL.

Panshanger: October 30, 1851, 6 P.M. My dear John Russell,-I have just received your letter of to-day, and am told your messenger waits for an answer. My reply, then, is immediate, and is, that there are limits to all things; that I do not choose to be dictated to as to who I may or may not receive in my own house; and that I shall use my own discretion on this matter. You will, of course, use yours as to the composition of your Government. I have not detained your messenger five minutes.-Yours sincerely,

PALMERSTON.