When this letter first appeared it was received with a chorus of approbation from peer, prelate, and people. Lord John, on this occasion at any rate, had not waited for the breeze to bear him forward. He had himself fanned the flame which was propelling his vessel. But, even in the midst of unprecedented enthusiasm, some whispers of dissatisfaction reached the Minister's ears. High Churchmen not unnaturally resented being called '.the unworthy sons of the Church of England.' Moderate Roman Catholics deplored the application of such a phrase as 'the mummeries of superstition' to a service which they regarded as sacred. Even so old a friend as Madam Durazzo wrote to say, 'Votre lettre à l'évêque de Durham m'a blessé au fond de l'âme;' while reports from Ireland continually assured him that no member for a Roman Catholic constituency would have a chance of re-election if he were to support a measure which denied territorial titles to Roman Catholic bishops. Yet, even if Lord John had desired to retreat from a position of difficulty, the enthusiasm which his letter had created among the Protestants of England would have made withdrawal impossible. He was compelled, when Parliament met, to put words into the Queen's mouth announcing a measure to resist the Pope's aggression; and on February 7, 1851, the first Friday in the session, he rose to introduce a Bill for the purpose.

Lord John Russell, so Mr. Greville once said, always spoke well when a great speech was required of him; and his speech on this occasion was no exception to the rule. The House, so far, was with him; and after four nights' debate his motion was carried by an enormous majority. But it was already plain that, though the vast majority of the House was prepared to resist the aggression of the Pope, Lord John could not command the support of his usual followers on other questions. In the week, over which this debate was protracted, Mr. Disraeli secured a night for the discussion of agricultural distress, and was only defeated by a narrow majority of fourteen. On the Monday which succeeded its termination, February 17, Sir Charles Wood brought forward the Budget,

1

and his proposals were received with disappointment and disapprobation. On the succeeding Thursday Mr. Locke King asked leave to introduce a Bill for equalising the county with the borough franchise; and, though Lord John distinctly undertook to deal with the matter himself in the following year, and asked the House, on the faith of this assurance, to reject Mr. Locke King's motion, his party went into the lobby against him and defeated him by a majority of two to one. It had been intended to renew the discussion on the Budget on the following evening; but Lord John asked that the committee should be postponed; and the House broke up in some confusion, the members speculating whether the Minister was intending to reconstruct the Budget or to retire from his position.

The blow could never have come in its final shape if the Cabinet had not refused to sanction the introduction of the measure of Reform which Lord John for two years had urged on it. Even in the preceding month, the Prime Minister had been forced to yield his opinion to that of his colleagues. He wrote to the Queen on January 20, 1851

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and has the honour to state that the Cabinet are generally of opinion that no Bill for extending the franchise should be brought forward by the Government in the present year.

Lord John Russell acquiesces reluctantly in this opinion, and will so state to the Cabinet this day.

After Lord John's defeat, Lord Minto wrote

EATON SQUARE, Thursday night.

MY DEAR LORD JOHN,-. . . If my cold did not keep me at home, I should have walked to Chesham Place to give a vent to some of the indignation that is boiling over. If the saddle could be put upon the right horse it would be all very well; but as matters stand the blame and the discredit appear to fall upon you.

1 This undertaking was given without previous consultation with the Cabinet, and Lord John's conduct in giving it was subsequently resented by some of its members.

If I were in the place of those who rejected your proposal, I could not consent to suffer you to be the scapegoat for my misdeeds; and I am willing to think that others may feel as I should have done, and may desire to have it understood that you had wished to propose a measure of your own. I shall be quite ready to throw out such a suggestion on Saturday, if you do not disapprove of it. ... These are hasty thoughts, which, especially if they be angry thoughts, are seldom worth much. But the expectoration relieves me. Yours ever, MINTO.

Lord John dissuaded Lord Minto from carrying out his suggestion, anxious perhaps that his own retirement should not lead to any bitterness among his friends. For neither he nor the Cabinet was in doubt as to the course which should be pursued. On the following morning he placed his resignation in the Queen's hands, and advised her to send for Lord Stanley. Lord Stanley, however, declined to attempt the formation of an Administration until an effort had been made to combine the Whigs with the followers of Sir Robert Peel; and, by the Queen's desire, Lord Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, and Lord John met at the Palace with a view to ascertain whether such a combination were possible. Lord John thereupon drew up the following memorandum :

Saturday night, February 22, 1851.

Lord John Russell having been informed by the Queen that Lord Stanley declines to form a Ministry at present, and her Majesty having called on Lord John Russell to attempt the reconstruction of a Ministry of which he should be at the head, proposes to Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham the following points as the basis of an agreement.

A Cabinet to be constructed anew of not more than eleven members, with reference only to their fitness for the several offices and their willingness to adhere to the following conditions :

1. The present commercial policy to be inviolably maintained, and any commercial or financial measures to be in harmony with this policy.

2. The financial measures of the present year to be open to revision.

3. The Bill 'to prevent the Assumption of Ecclesiastical Titles, &c.,' to be persevered in so far as the preamble and the first clause,

but the remaining clauses to be abandoned-much misapprehension having prevailed in Ireland with respect to those clauses.

4. Notice to be given of a Bill to extend the right of voting for members of Parliament in the counties, cities, and boroughs in England and Wales, such Bill to be introduced immediately after Easter.

5. A Commission of Inquiry to be instituted into corrupt practices at elections in the cities and boroughs of the United Kingdom.

The following was Lord Aberdeen's and Sir James Graham's

answer :

ARGYLL HOUSE, February 24, 1851. Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham, in obedience to the Queen's commands, have considered the points which Lord John Russell proposes as the basis of agreement in his attempt to reconstruct a Ministry, of which her Majesty has chosen Lord John Russell to be the head.

1. Adherence to the commercial policy, transmitted by the late Sir Robert Peel to Lord John Russell, presents no difficulty. It is desirable that all future commercial and financial measures should be framed in the spirit, and with the declared object, of that policy, so far as varying circumstances will allow.

2. There can be no objection on the part of Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham to a reconsideration of the financial measures lately submitted by Sir Charles Wood to the House of Commons.

3. A Bill has been introduced into the House of Commons, after a full statement of its contents, with the consent of a large majority of the House, the object of which is to prevent the assumption of ecclesiastical titles by Roman Catholic prelates in the United Kingdom. It is now proposed to strike out of this Bill all the clauses except the first, thereby reducing the efficacy of the measure. What remains of the Bill will be almost inoperative but it must be remembered that the omission of the three last clauses will probably give rise to great disappointment and disapprobation on the part of those who represent the popular feeling in Great Britain so much excited in hostility to recent proceedings on the part of the Court of Rome. On the other hand, the small remnant of the Bill will still be resented as penal and offensive by the great body of her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects.

Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham have never admitted the policy of any such legislation; and, while they condemn the tone assumed by the Pope in his brief, and by Cardinal Wiseman in his

pastoral letter, they see no sufficient grounds for legislative interference and they cannot be parties to an attempt from which they anticipate no good, and see reason for apprehending many serious evils.

4. It is not possible to acquiesce in giving notice of a Bill for the extension of the suffrage in England and Wales, not only without any previous careful consideration of its details, but without any knowledge of its contents. There may be no objection to the principles of such extension, if safeguards can be provided which will preserve the balance of the constitution, and which will strengthen and not impair the existing form of government: Delay in the introduction of such a measure, when its necessity has been admitted in Parliament by the First Minister of the Crown, must indeed be attended with inconvenience: but the possibility of framing a Bill on this most difficult and most important subject before Easter is questionable.

5. The proposed Commission of Inquiry into corrupt practices at elections in the cities and boroughs of the United Kingdom, if unobjectionable, would seem to afford a just ground for delay in the introduction of the promised Bill for the extension of the franchise but this commission may lead to changes in the system of representation which cannot be foreseen, and might produce an increased desire for secret voting.

Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham have thus communicated, in the first instance, their opinion on the conditions which Lord John Russell proposes as the basis of his new Government.

It is stated also by Lord John Russell that the number of the Cabinet is to be limited to eleven, and that the choice of the members within this narrow limit is to be made with reference to their fitness for the several offices. Lord John Russell, to whom the formation of the new Ministry has been confided by her Majesty, will necessarily be the sole adviser of the Queen in making this selection. It is not necessary for Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham to dwell on this portion of Lord John Russell's memorandum, or to reserve their right of independent judgment with respect to the colleagues with whom it may be intended to associate them; because on the preliminary points of public policy herein discussed there is not that agreement with Lord John Russell himself which would justify the acceptance of a proposal to join his Government on the conditions specified above.

Sir James Graham, speaking for himself alone, and judging by the measures of the late Government in connection with recent inquiries by committees of the House of Commons into the expendi