aggression; and, as a preliminary to action, they desired to heal the differences which kept the various sections of Liberals asunder. They could hardly conceal from themselves that a new combination was impossible which did not satisfy the rival claims of Lord Palmerston and Lord John. It was a proof how greatly Lord John had risen in public estimation since 1855, that the universal consent of his followers placed him again on a level with Lord Palmerston; while a large section of the Liberal party was looking to him and not to Lord Palmerston as its future leader. If, however, the party was anxious for a forward movement, Lord John himself had too much pleasure in his independence to feel any desire for a fresh Ministerial crisis. He was on the best of terms with the Prime Minister; he paid him a visit at Knowsley this very autumn; and, though he was anxious for a new Reform Bill, he was as ready to accept a good measure from Lord Derby as to introduce it himself. Busy with his literary pursuits, and contented with his own position, he would not-if no new question had arisen-have cared to disturb the Conservative Administration.

In the course of the autumn, however, it became evident that a new crisis was arising in Italy. Lord John, who was in communication with many leading Italians, told Lord Minto on October 29 that the Italians, 'relying on the supposed readiness of Louis Napoleon to give his assistance'on condition (1) that he should have Savoy, (2) that the Pope. should be secured in the sovereignty of the city of Romewere preparing for a fresh struggle.' He added that he had himself told his informant in reply, 'that the affairs regarded all Europe, and ought to be settled by a European concert. But [that] there was little chance that Lord Derby would favour such a concert.' He wrote again on December 14—

I have been told confidentially that an agent of the French Foreign Office is inquiring in London what part the Liberal press will take if the Emperor Napoleon crosses the Alps to help Sardinia, asking only for Savoy as a reward.

This looks serious. I cannot tell Palmerston and Clarendon,

as I suspect their advice to the Emperor would be quite against Italy. But you take so great an interest in her fate that I tell you-and you only.

I have advised, as I told you long ago, a general congress. The powers would not be so hostile to Italy as you suppose. Russia would favour France. Prussia will hardly be active in favour of Austria. Malmesbury is, I fear, quite hostile, but not the House of Commons. Yours affectionately, J. R.

Lord John's desire for a congress was not destined to be realised. On the contrary, at the beginning of 1859, the speech of Napoleon to the Austrian Ambassador, the projected marriage between Prince Napoleon and the King of Sardinia's daughter, and the language of the King of Sardinia made it evident that the issue would be settled by arms. When Parliament met, on February 3, the Queen expressed her desire to contribute, as far as her influence could extend, to the preservation of the general peace; and men of all parties, in the debate on the Address, reciprocated the Queen's language. Lord John himself deprecated an infraction of the peace of Europe as 'one of the very worst examples that could be set.' But he went on that 'we should gain no advantage for the cause of peace, no advantage for the future welfare of Italy or of Europe, by endeavouring to blind our eyes to those serious evils and misfortunes which have from time to time been inflicted on Italy.' Tracing the various acts of interference by Austria and France in the affairs of the peninsula, he declared of the Romagna that Austrian forces and French forces 'impose upon that country about the very worst form of government that any country ever had.' And it was to the withdrawal of these foreign forces that he looked for a remedy.

I am convinced that the people of Central Italy-a people who for five centuries have been glorious in literature . if the foreign forces were withdrawn . . . would soon settle such laws for their own government as would produce contentment and prosperity.

Thus, at the very commencement of 1859, a question was brought into sudden prominence on which Lord John felt

strongly, and on which he had no confidence in the Conservative Administration. The attitude of neutrality, which he had hitherto observed, could not but be affected by the circumstance. And the introduction of a measure of Parliamentary Reform by the Conservative Cabinet almost necessarily drove him into a fresh alliance with Liberals. Sir Theodore Martin, in writing the Life of the Prince Consort, has not hesitated to declare that 'whatever measure Lord Derby's Ministry might propose was sure to be challenged by Lord John Russell and others, who looked upon themselves as having a sort of exclusive right to guide the public mind upon the question.' Such a sentence is only a proof that Sir Theodore failed to appreciate Lord John's conduct and character. Lord John would have welcomed a good measure of Reform from any source, but he was determined to accept Reform from no source which did not proceed on what he thought sound principles.

No one with any acquaintance with Lord John's views on Reform could doubt, moreover, that the particular measure which the Conservative Government adopted would be objectionable to him both from what it did and what it did not. (1) It left the borough franchise unchanged. (2) It reduced the occupation franchise in counties from £50 to £10. (3) It transferred the right of voting, in respect of town freeholds, from the counties to the town in which the freeholds were situated. (4) It did nothing to bring the franchise down to the level of the working classes.

As he himself said immediately after its introduction—

Ever since I departed from that proposition of finality, which Earl Grey and Lord Althorp always insisted upon, I have done so upon this ground-which appeared to me to be the only ground for disturbing the settlement of so vast and complicated a subject—namely, that there was a great body of persons, and those persons belonging to the working classes of the country, who were very competent to exercise the franchise. With regard to all these persons the right hon. gentleman does little or nothing.

Holding these views, he gave notice on March 10 that he

should move a resolution, upon the second reading of the Bill, in conformity with them. That resolution was carried, after a memorable debate, on the morning of April 1, by a majority of 39; and, on the following Monday, Ministers announced their intention of dissolving Parliament and of appealing to the country.

Two days after this announcement Lord John issued his address to the electors of the City. He naturally placed his conduct on the Reform Bill in the forefront of the battle.

Her Majesty's Ministers, early in the session, introduced a socalled Reform Bill. Among the defects of the Bill, which were numerous, one provision was conspicuous by its presence and another by its absence. . . . It seemed to me that to move an amendment pointing out on the second reading the chief faults of the Bill would be the most clear, manly, and direct course: it was approved by a majority of the whole House of Commons.

But, in the few weeks which elapsed before the dissolution took place, the circumstances which were visibly leading to the Franco-Austrian War raised a new issue of greater importance even than Reform; and Lord John at once brought the new question before his constituents.

The Earl of Derby has clearly intimated that in the event of war our position must be one of 'armed neutrality, enabling us to take part on that side, whatever it may be, which the honour, the interests, and the dignity of this country may indicate as best deserving our support.'

Unfortunately, the language of Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli, for several years past, leaves no room to doubt which is the side which in their opinion will best deserve our support. It is the side of Austria.

It appears to me, on the other hand, that the honour of Great Britain demands that she should not assist in riveting the chains of Italy, and that her interest requires that she should maintain peace with all the powers of Europe.

I am, therefore, in favour of an open, honest, and strict neutrality.

Lord John encountered no difficulty in 1859 in retaining the seat which his own gallantry had saved him in 1857. But

}

H

the election was not otherwise favourable to the cause of Liberalism. The Conservatives gained largely at the polls; and, though they failed to secure a majority, they formed a compact party of more than 300 members in the new House of Commons. Numerically strong, moreover, they gained fresh strength from the disorganisation of their opponents. The Liberals could not but suffer from the circumstance that they had two ex-Prime Ministers in their camp. The events of the last two years had lowered Lord Palmerston in estimation as much as they had raised Lord John; and the managers of the party thought that it was as impossible to expect Lord John to serve under Lord Palmerston as to place Lord Palmerston under Lord John.

The men who were speculating on a possible solution of this dilemma were disposed, as usual, to throw the blame of it on Lord John. Mr. Greville, writing on May 29, declared that 'everything was thrown into uncertainty because Lord John would not say what he intended to do.' Mr. Greville was, for once, misinformed. Lord John had distinctly stated what he intended to do. Writing privately to one of his most familiar correspondents on May 16, he said, There is 'no personal difference between Palmerston and me. We should act together cordially if others did not interfere to make mischief;' while on May 17 he distinctly indicated his own opinion to Sir James Graham :

:

MY DEAR GRAHAM,

PEMBROKE LODGE: May 17, 1859. There is a great disposition in the Liberal party to say that the differences between Palmerston and me are the cause why a Liberal Government cannot be made. Now, although this is not true, I feel that I ought if called upon to destroy all reasonable ground for saying that my personal pretensions stand in the way of the public welfare.

On the other hand, I cannot, without sacrificing public objects, accept office without power, and expose myself to be strangled at any moment by the mutes of the party.

There are two situations of influence in the general, as distinguished from the departmental, government of the country; the one that of Prime Minister, the other that of leader of the House