as Mr. Raikes Currie was universally called; and, on the following day, March 28, his little girl's fourth birthday, Lord John was at the head of the poll from the opening to the last hour; and, though he ultimately stood in the third place only, polled upwards of 7000 votes.

This success, due to Lord John's courage, had a great effect on his career. For five years he had undoubtedly occupied a distasteful position. He had been deserted in 1852 by his friends, and he had been since almost constantly misunderstood. Men could not be persuaded to believe that, in breaking up Lord Aberdeen's Administration, he had been actuated by disinterested motives; and they insisted on declaring that he had been ready to conclude an unworthy peace at Vienna, and to argue against it at Westminster. The City election at once changed the opinion both of the electors and the country. Courage always impresses a mob; Lord John's courage made the people think. They could not think at all without reflecting much on Lord John's services and their own ingratitude. A reaction consequently set in; and reaction, when it once occurs, is apt to be rapid. Wherever Lord John went in 1857, he was received with increasing interest and respect. Paying a visit to South Molton, almost immediately after the election, the people presented him with an address, and enabled him to sound in his reply the keynote of his policy:

The opinion of the good,' says Milton, 'is knowledge in the making.' By consulting the opinions of the good and the enlightened the House of Commons recently elected may find means to promote education, to extend political franchises, to enlarge the boundaries of religious freedom by removing some remaining disabilities, and to relieve the people of some of their vexatious burdens. I shall have every reason to be grateful and contented if I am permitted by my votes in Parliament to contribute to such happy results.

Later in the year Lord John attended meetings at Sheffield and Birmingham. At Sheffield he said roundly that the whole truth respecting the negotiations at Vienna had not been made public. At Birmingham he reminded the public of the work

6

still before the House of Commons. The Spectator, in commenting on these meetings, declared that there was 'a reviving interest' about Lord John personally. Perhaps nothing has brought the fact more distinctly home to his own mind than the tone of his reception at Birmingham. He finds himself still recognised and welcomed, and is evidently inspired with new life. The degree of coolness which did exist between Lord John Russell and the public has passed away.'

Lord John, moreover, by his conduct during the session confirmed the favourable impression which he had already made. He might easily have been forgiven if he had shown some animosity towards the Government. No member of it had interfered to prevent the unworthy attempt to oust him from London. One member of it had interfered, so at least Lord John's friends believed, to prevent, in the event of his defeat in the City, his election for Edinburgh. But he retained, throughout the session, the position which he had marked out for himself of an independent supporter of Lord Palmerston; and on one great occasion he rendered the Minister a service such as few have the opportunity of doing, News came, while Parliament was sitting, of the mutiny of the Indian army, the most calamitous event in the history of this country during the present century. Mr. Disraeli, on July 27, under the pretext of moving for papers, made a long and strong attack on Indian administration. Lord John rose late in the debate. He began his speech by declaring that in the presence of what had been truly described as an awful calamity

I cannot conceive anything less tending to the advantage either of England or of India than such a discussion as the one in which we are now engaged.

He concluded it by a more emphatic declaration—

Whatever we may do in the future. . . the first matter upon which the House of Commons ought to pronounce any opinion is that the Queen's Government ought to be supported. I have differed from them with respect to several measures not immediately Indian, but connected with the East-their Chinese and Persian Wars-but there is no question of these wars at the present

time. The question of this evening is the government of India, and I do submit to this House that we ought, not to be satisfied with the grant or refusal of an insignificant paper or despatch; but that, the question having been raised and placed before us, we ought to come to some decision which may give strength to the Government.

And he accordingly moved an address assuring the Crown of the support of the House in its efforts to suppress the disturbance in India.

Mr. Disraeli called Lord John's speech

one of those dry constitutional platitudes which, in a moment of difficulty, the noble Lord the member for the City of London mechanically pulls out of the dusty pigeon-holes of his mind and shakes in the perplexed face of a baffled House of Commons.

But Lord Palmerston, with much truer instinct, said that Lord John had struck the keynote of the public feeling;' and the House rejected Mr. Disraeli's proposition and adopted Lord John's address without a division. Lord Fortescue, two days later, expressed the common feeling of all classes in the following letter:

July 29, 1857.

MY DEAR J. RUSSELL,—I cannot resist telling you the great pleasure with which I have read your speech and the motion which followed it on Monday. Your particular position enabled you to make it with a degree of weight and authority which it could not have derived from any other individual in the House; and you have the merit and the glory of having converted into an aid to the Government and a benefit to the country the most mischievous and unprincipled attempt that I ever recollect to make personal and party capital out of public calamity and disaster. -Yours

ever,

FORTESCUE.

Though, however, Lord John concluded that his first duty, in a grave crisis, was to support the Government, he did not regard its treatment of India with unmixed satisfaction. He thought that, if Lord Palmerston had been as active in sending reinforcements to Calcutta as he had proved a year before in despatching troops to China, the mutiny would probably have been confined within narrow limits. The revolt, moreover,

taught him, as it taught other people, that the system on which India was governed was obsolete, and that new circumstances required new machinery. But he told Mr. Vernon Smith, the President of the Board of Control, who applied to him for his opinion on the subject

I think it would be wrong to ground any change upon an allegation of misconduct on the part of the East India Company. Considering the vast powers entrusted to a set of private gentlemen and merchants, they have conducted their affairs in a wonderful manner, falling into errors that were natural, but displaying merits of a high order. The real ground for change is that the machine is worn out, and, as a manufacturer changes an excellent engine of Watt and Boulton made fifty years ago for a new modern engine with modern improvements, so it becomes us to find a new machine for the government of India.

Lord John went on to say that he hesitated to place the government of our great dependency under a Minister changing with the Administration of the day.

The colonies have been and must continue to be in this position. The consequence has been that the Opposition has made the government of the colonies a party question, and often on the most unsound and futile pretexts.

And he went on to suggest that India should be placed under a Council whose President, sitting in Parliament, should be removable by the Crown, but not connected with the Executive Government; that the army should be separated into a European or Queen's army and a native army; and that the scheme, instead of being incorporated in a Bill, should be embodied in resolutions, which, after having been discussed and carried in the Commons, should be reported to the Lords.

Lord John mentioned the proposal, which he thus made to Mr. Vernon Smith, to three other persons-Lord Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, and Lord Minto. They all thought it impossible that the head of the new Government should not be a member of the Cabinet; and Lord John deferred to their joint opinions.

Parliament, which had sat for a few weeks in December

1857, was adjourned till the 4th of the following February. During the interval a brutal attempt was made on the life of the Emperor of the French by the explosion of bombs, proved to have been manufactured in this country. The outrage led to a violent outbreak of feeling in France. M. Walewski, on behalf of the French Government, formally asked us to strengthen our laws; the French Ambassador in London spoke in strong terms to a deputation from the City; while the French army sent to the Emperor addresses, which were published in the Moniteur, breathing insult and menace to England. The British Ministry neglected to reply to M. Walewski's despatch; but it determined to comply with the French demand. Sir George Grey communicated the decision privately to Lord John on February 1, and Lord John at once wrote

PEMBROKE LODGE: February 2, 1858. MY DEAR GEORGE GREY,-I have read with great pain the letter I have received from you this morning. I was in hopes that the Morning Post and the Times had been misinformed.

It seems to me that the threats against England, published by order of the Emperor in the Moniteur, ought to have made any Minister who had a regard for national dignity decline to enter into any speculative question with a view of altering the law of conspiracy.

I can only say that, if you persist, as I fear you will, I shall oppose you to the utmost of my power.-I remain, yours faithfully, J. RUSSELL.

He spoke

Lord John certainly redeemed his promise. strongly against the introduction of the Bill; closing his speech with an emphatic declaration: 'Let those who will support the Bill of the Government; in that shame and humiliation I am determined not to share.' took no active part in the debate on Mr. amendment, a week later he voted with the majority by which Lord Palmerston's Government was overthrown.

And, though he Milner Gibson's

The defeat of Lord Palmerston and the formation of Lord Derby's Government did not, in the first instance, materially affect Lord John's position. There was not much difference,