ture of the army, navy, and ordnance, into official salaries, and the fees and charges of the courts of law, would feel it his duty in Government to insist on a more rigid economy, and on a reduction of the public expenditure, such as Lord John Russell, according to the belief of Sir James Graham, is not prepared to sanction.

Lord John at once replied

DOWNING STREET, February 24, 1851. Lord John Russell wishes to explain some points in his former memorandum which do not appear to have been clearly understood by Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham.

:

On the third point Lord John Russell wishes to state that in his opinion the main object of the Bill with respect to the assumption of ecclesiastical titles was to assert the national independence from the pretensions of a foreign prince. If this object had been attained, he was willing to waive those parts of the Bill which had excited an alarm in Ireland of an intention to interfere with the spiritual acts of the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy, and thereby affect the religious liberty which is so justly held dear by all classes of the Queen's subjects. Such an intention never existed.

On the fourth point Lord John Russell will only observe that of course all the details of a Bill for the extension of the suffrage must be considered before any notice is given of its introduction. But the time of such introduction is of less importance than a previous agreement that there is no positive bar to the consideration of such a measure.

With regard to the suggestions relating to the number of the Cabinet, and that the selection was to be made solely with reference to the fitness of its members for their several offices, Lord John Russell only meant to preclude a nomination of four for one party and four for another, in reference to their previous agreement with different sections of the Cabinet. He considers such arrangements the cause of weakness and internal dissension. But Lord John Russell did not intend to submit a single name to her Majesty without the previous assent of Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham. But, as there is not that agreement on the preliminary points of public policy which would justify the acceptance of a proposal to join Lord John Russell in forming a Government, it is only necessary to explain that Lord John Russell meant the most entire and full confidence in Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham both in framing and carrying on the Government.

With respect to the latter points to which Sir James Graham has adverted, Lord John Russell has no means of judging what are the points upon which Sir James Graham would insist on a more rigid economy than Lord John Russell is prepared to sanction. The efficiency of the public service ought in his opinion to be always kept in view in any reductions that may be made, but no office should be maintained on any other grounds, which could be safely abolished or reduced.

ARGYLL HOUSE, February 25, 1851.

Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham have received the expla nations which Lord John Russell was desirous of giving on certain points arising out of their recent correspondence. These expla nations seem to remove any doubt or misunderstanding; but, as they do not materially affect the principal point of difference respecting the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and as the negotiation is now closed, it cannot be necessary to carry the discussion further.

Lord John Russell has intimated a wish that publicity should not be given to the written communications which have passed on this occasion. Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham readily acquiesce in this desire. They will not allow any copies to be taken of their correspondence, nor will they make any public use of it, unless compelled by unforeseen circumstances, which they cannot anticipate, to recur to it in their own defence.

Sir James Graham added in a private note—

I can assure you, on the part of Lord Aberdeen and of myself, that we are actuated by no unfriendly feeling, and that we earnestly desire not to add to your difficulties or to give you any unnecessary pain.

Lord John announced the failure of the negotiation to his old colleagues in the following note:

February 24, 1851.

Lord John Russell received this evening an answer from Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham on certain general terms which he had proposed as the basis of reconstructing the Government.

Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham object decidedly to any legislative measure on the subject of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. This puts an end to the negotiation, and Lord John Russell has returned his commission into her Majesty's hands.

There has been no question between Lord Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, and himself with regard to persons.

Lord John Russell begs his colleagues to receive his cordial thanks for their able support during four trying years, and their disinterested kindness on this occasion.

The negotiation had failed; and, after the Queen had again applied to Lord Aberdeen and Lord Stanley, she sent, on the advice of the Duke of Wellington, for Lord John and asked him to resume the Government. He complied with her wish,

and it is difficult to see how he could have done otherwise. Yet his resumption of office involved the consequences which had ensued from the return of the Whigs to power under Lord Melbourne in May 1839. A Government was maintained in office, not by its own strength, but by the weakness of its adversaries; and an Administration tolerated rather than supported cannot avoid incurring discredit. The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was modified; the Budget was recast; the Ministry on other occasions experienced several annoying defeats; and the session closed with an almost universal conviction that the Ministry had lost ground, that the existing system was worn out, and that '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, on August 12, 1851, 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 1 The opinion is Mr. Cobden's. See his Life, vol. ii. p. 91.

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 the subject. 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, rateable 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 was forwarded to the Queen, 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 recommendation 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

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 VOL. II.

I

prevailed upon to withdraw his resignation on finding that any other course would cause an immediate dissolution of the Government; '1 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; 2 and in the interval the crisis had occurred which had led to Lord Palmerston's abrupt dismissal from the Foreign Office. It 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 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.

1 On December 8, Lord John 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.'

2 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 for some months had been anxious to retire.