him.'1 And Lord John received the satisfactory assurance at Bowood, where he was paying his promised visit to Lord Lansdowne. Nothing could have been more opportune for Lord John. Lord Lansdowne's influence with him was always exerted in behalf of compromise and moderation. He was, of course, more likely to yield when he found that deference had been shown to his own opinions; and Lord Lansdowne and he soon agreed on a compromise on the Reform question, under which a little more weight was to be given to county constituencies and a little less weight to towns.

This compromise arranged, Lord John returned to London, where he found that another negotiation had been actively taking place in his absence. Lady Palmerston had hinted to some of her husband's old colleagues that Lord Palmerston had acted hastily in resigning, and that he was ready to return. The Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Gladstone, and Sir Charles Wood in consequence of these hints had long conversations with Lord Palmerston; and, on the 20th, Lord Aberdeen communicated these reports to Lord John, adding

I have told Wood and Gladstone, who have both spoken to me on the subject, that it is a matter which I must place entirely in your hands before I could move at all: but that I should be quite ready to follow your advice.

On the 23rd Lord Palmerston himself wrote to Lord Aberdeen to withdraw his resignation, and the Ministry accordingly by the end of the year was reconstituted on its old basis.

Lord John could not but regard Lord Palmerston's return to office with mixed feelings. On the one hand he could not help perceiving that it again left the details of his favourite measure open to discussion, or remembering that the letter in which Lord Palmerston had announced his dislike of the Reform Bill was not too courteous to himself. On the other hand, Lord Palmerston's presence in the Cabinet strengthened the hands of those who, like Lord John, had all along thought that

1 This was the famous despatch, actually sent on the 24th, approving the suggestion of the French Government that the allied fleet should enter the Black Sea, and 'invite' any Russian vessels of war to return to Sebastopol.

the best chance of preserving peace lay in using firm and decided language, and who concluded that, if war should unhappily occur, the party of action would require to be reinforced. Whichever of these considerations prevailed-and Lord John was influenced by both of them-the storm in the Cabinet had the effect of clearing the air. The details of Reform were rapidly settled to Lord John's satisfaction, and the reconstructed Cabinet spoke thenceforward with a firm voice on the Eastern question. While, however, harmony was established in the council chamber, the public out of doors was lashed into unusual excitement by the news of the Ministerial crisis. Most people declined to believe that Lord Palmerston would have left the Cabinet, on the eve of war, because he was unable to agree upon the details of a Reform Bill. They inferred that he had really resigned because he was dissatisfied with the Eastern policy of the Cabinet; and they assumed that Lord Aberdeen's reluctance to strong measures was increased by the attitude of the Court and the counsels of Prince Albert. It was roundly asserted, both in Liberal and Conservative newspapers, that the Prince was interfering unconstitutionally both in foreign and domestic affairs; and the charges which were made against him were couched in language and assumed a character of unusual and unjustifiable violence. Both the Queen and the Prince felt bitterly the injustice of accusations which their position made it impossible for them to repel. But they were, of course, forced to wait for the meeting of Parliament for their justification. On the 31st of January 1854, the first night of the session, the Prince's conduct was explained and defended by Lord Aberdeen in the House of Lords, and Lord John in the House of Commons. Nothing could be more complete than the vindication which Lord John thus gave. The whole fabric of accusation dissolved like a bubble. Mr. Greville wrote with perfect truth

John Russell made a very good speech, and took the bull by the horns about the Prince, entered at once into the subject, and delivered an eloquent vindication of and eulogium on him in his best style. It was excellent.

The Prince himself was warm in his acknowledgments; the Queen hastened to express her gratitude and pleasure; and Lord Strafford told the Duke of Bedford that he had never recollected such an impression produced by any speech.

This preliminary debate was, however, only the prelude to much more decisive matters. Four days later Baron Brunnow called on Lord Clarendon to announce his recall; while, on February 17, in a debate on foreign policy, Lord John traced the whole progress of the Eastern question, and frankly admitted the imminence of war. He concluded

For my part, if most unexpectedly the Emperor of Russia should recede from his former demands we shall all rejoice to be spared the pain, the efforts, and the burdens of war. But if . . . peace is no longer consistent with our duty to England, with our duty to Europe, with our duty to the world. .. we can only endeavour to enter into this contest with a stout heart. May God defend the right! And I, for my part, shall be willing to bear my share of the burden and the responsibility.

This dignified language excited unbounded admiration when it was uttered. Lord Charles Russell, who, as Serjeantat-Arms, was in close communication with members on both sides of the House, told the Duke of Bedford that 'the general remark was, "This is the best thing he has ever done; "' and Mr. Punch made the speech the subject of a poem, which Mr. Leech illustrated with one of his best

cartoons.

The general apprehension of war was not favourable to the great measure of Reform on which Lord John had set his heart. He gave notice of its introduction for February 13. But on the 10th Lord Jocelyn, who by marriage was nearly connected with Lord Palmerston, asked him whether it was his intention to proceed bonâ fide with the measure. Lord John replied that he intended not only to introduce the Bill on the promised day, but to fix the second reading for March 13. He carried out the first part of this programme; but the House, which by this time was thinking of nothing but war, received the proposal with apathy, while Lord Palmerston

spared no effort to promote the postponement of the measure. For a time it seemed possible that the struggle between the two men might lead to the dissolution of the Ministry. But the increasing tension of the Eastern question, and the necessity of providing for the war, induced Lord John partially to give way, and at the end of February he told Lord Aberdeen that he was prepared to postpone the Bill. The only members of the Cabinet who seem to have had serious doubts on the propriety of this decision were Sir James Graham and Lord Aberdeen himself. The Prime Minister, however, while expressing his anxiety for the success of the measure, placed himself frankly in Lord John's hands,1 and Lord John on March 3 announced his decision to postpone the second reading till April 27. The announcement was received with almost universal satisfaction, though one or two members could not resist the pleasure of eliciting a short-lived cheer by striking at Lord John. Thus Sir John Shelley, who represented Westminster, either said, or was understood by Lord John to say, that the proposal of the measure was a sham; while Mr. Disraeli contrasted a phrase of the Prime Minister's, that 'the Government in introducing the Bill had been influenced by a feeling of personal honour,' with a 'sententious dogma' of Sir George Grey that a statesman was not to be hampered by feelings of personal consideration arising out of pledges which he may have given. Lord John, in repelling Sir John Shelley's insinuation, declared that he felt utter indifference to it, coming as it did from a man who has no right to speak in the name of Reform; and, after enumerating the battles which he himself had fought in the cause, added, 'Does the hon. gentleman think he has a right to treat me- -' and the House drowned

1 Lord Aberdeen added, 'I wish that I could feel as much at ease on the subject of the unhappy war in which we are about to be engaged. The abstract justice of the cause, although indisputable, is but a poor consolation for the inevitable calamities of all war, or for a decision which I am not without fear may prove to have been impolitic and unwise. My conscience upbraids me the more, because seeing, as I did from the first, all that was to be apprehended, it is possible that by a little more energy and vigour, not on the Danube, but in Downing Street, it might have been prevented.

the rest of the sentence with its cheers. Of Mr. Disraeli he

said very happily he

'Faggoted his notions as they fell,

And, if they rhymed and rattled, all was well.'1

And then, rising to a higher strain, he went on—

Sir, I should be ashamed of myself if I were to prefer a concern for my own personal reputation to that which I understood to be for the interests of my country. But it seems to me that the character of the men who rule this country-whether they be at the moment in office or in opposition-is a matter of the utmost interest to the people of this country, and that it is of paramount importance that full confidence should be reposed in their character. It is, in fact, on the confidence of the people in the character of public men that the security of this country in a great degree depends.

In writing to Lord John the following morning the Queen expressed herself as 'particularly pleased' with this language. But, in truth, it was hardly necessary for Lord John to lay down such a doctrine. Men might, nay did, criticise his faults of manner or his mistakes of policy. But those who approved, and those who condemned, would have alike agreed that in' character he was, like Bayard, 'sans peur et sans reproche.'

The temporary postponement of the Reform Bill, however, did not terminate the existing difficulty. The drift which was ever bearing the Ministry towards war increased in force; with the approach of war the disinclination both of the Cabinet and of Parliament to deal with Reform became constantly stronger, and Lord John had to face the prospect of a fresh postponement. Writing confidentially to Lord Aberdeen on March 23, he said

There can be no doubt that the great majority, perhaps nearly the whole, of the two Houses of Parliament wish for postponement till another year. But, in order to enable you and me to take that course, we ought to be able to assure Reformers that the question

1 The lines are from Absalom and Achitophel, and are applied by Dryden to Doeg.