ment of Sir C. Wood, who became Lord Halifax, enabled him to move Lord de Grey from the War Office to the India Office, and to promote Lord Hartington to the first place in the War Department.

These changes slightly strengthened the Cabinet, and increased, to some extent, its influence in the Commons. But the embarrassments which had arisen from these slight personal changes were accentuated by the difficulties which occurred in agreeing upon measures. Every one out of the Cabinet felt that the accession of Lord Russell to the first place in the Ministry must inevitably lead to the introduction of a fresh Reform Bill. But almost every one in the Cabinet was anxious either to postpone the remedy or to make the dose as mild as possible. Lord Russell did not share these opinions. As he told the Queen a few weeks later—

Lord Russell's opinion is that a Ministry to have a chance of stability must be either frankly Liberal or frankly Conservative; he does not think that a mixed, colourless, characterless Ministry would have any chance of stability.

Acting on this principle, he laboured in Cabinet to frame a moderate but real measure of Reform; but, warned by the experience of 1854 and 1860, he strove to limit its scope. With the first object he succeeded, with Mr. Gladstone's help, in prevailing over the reluctance of his colleagues, and in basing the franchise on rental instead of on rating; with the second object he decided on dealing with the franchise only, and on postponing the question of redistribution to some future time.

The Bill which was thus proposed, and which contemplated the reduction of the county franchise from £50 to £14, and of the borough franchise from £10 to £7, and the enfranchisement of lodgers, would have added, if it had passed, a considerable number of voters to the electorate. It was

introduced by Mr. Gladstone on March 12. Some people thought that Mr. Gladstone hardly spoke on this occasion with his accustomed fire; he had, at any rate, to suffer the

chilling influence of an irresponsive audience. But the first reading was carried after two nights' debate; and the second reading was fixed for April 12. It was, however, already evident that, while the Conservative party was organised and active, the Liberals on their side were divided and callous. They argued, with some force, that the Government had only brought one-half of its scheme before Parliament, and that it was unstatesmanlike and impolitic to accept one portion of the scheme without being acquainted with the whole. Lord Grosvenor, though he sat on the Liberal benches, declared that he would meet the second reading with a resolution that it was inexpedient to discuss a Bill for the reduction of the franchise until the House has before it the entire scheme contemplated by the Government;' while Mr. Kinglake, the author of 'Eothen,' aiming at the same end, but anxious to save the existence of the Ministry, announced that he should ask the House to declare that it is not expedient to go into committee on the said Bill until this House shall have before it the expected Bill for the redistribution of seats.'

The difference between these rival motions was not one of principle, but of time. Mr. Kinglake and Lord Grosvenor were equally anxious for a complete scheme. But, while Lord Grosvenor wished to affirm the necessity for completeness before the House pronounced an opinion on the principle of the measure, Mr. Kinglake was ready to postpone this expression of opinion until the principle had been accepted by the passage of the second reading. Mr. Kinglake, in other words, was the more friendly, Lord Grosvenor the more logical objector; and, as friendliness is a more important factor than logic in politics, the Government felt itself able to accept the compromise which Mr. Kinglake offered to it.

Thus, when the second reading of the Bill came on, the real question for decision was whether the House would accept Mr. Kinglake's compromise, to which the Ministry was willing to assent, or insist on Lord Grosvenor's amendment, to which it declined to agree. It answered the question, on the morning of April 28, by passing the second reading of the

Bill, but passing it by a majority so small that it made the continuance of the Ministry in power difficult. The Liberal majority, in fact, sank to that fatal number of five which Lord Russell must have recollected had produced, nearly thirty years before, the crisis of 1839. Nor was the narrowness of the division the most serious symptom. The minority was swelled by the names of Liberals whom Mr. Bright had already likened to the discontented occupiers of the Cave of Adullam, and who, Lord Russell said years afterwards, were 'divided into three columns or gangs, the first consisting of the selfish, the second of the timid, and the third of those who were both selfish and timid.' The presence of these malcontents made the passage of the Bill, and even the future of the Government, uncertain; and the Ministry seriously considered whether it would abandon its task. It decided to persevere; and, on the last day of April, Mr. Gladstone announced its decision. A week later it carried out its pledge by introducing three additional measures-a Redistribution Bill for England and Wales, and Reform Bills for Scotland and Ireland.

The members of the Cabinet, in so far assenting to the wishes of its critics, did not conceal from themselves the difficulties which were still before them. But they felt that every effort consistent with principle should be made to conciliate opposition. Accordingly, on the second reading of the Redistribution Bill, Mr. Gladstone assented to an instruction to the committee to fuse Franchise Bill and Redistribution Bill into one; while Lord Russell himself made a strong appeal to Lord Grosvenor:

37 CHESHAM PLACE: May 15, 1866. DEAR LORD GROSVENOR,—I wish to submit for your consideration some reflections on the Reform question as it now stands. When the Franchise Bill and the Seats Bill stand for committee, the Government will be ready either to fuse the two Bills into one Bill, or to carry them on pari passu as it may seem to the House of Commons and the Government most expedient.

This is not a point of much importance.

What is really important is that the question should be settled for a considerable time, say to the end of the century or longer.

There was fair ground for maintaining that the franchise and the distribution of seats, as settled by the Reform Act, should not be altered, and that ground I myself maintained till the votes of the House of Commons and the advance of public opinion rendered it no longer tenable.

But, now that the Government and the Opposition have alike pledged themselves to consider the question of Reform with a view to its settlement, it would be most unwise to pass a Bill which would be a signal for fresh and increasing agitation.

If sixty or seventy thousand of those who would be entitled to the borough franchise by the present Bill were to have the door shut upon them by a vote of the House of Commons, Mr. Gladstone and I could no longer be responsible for the Bill as a settlement; and proposals for scot and lot, or perhaps for manhood suffrage, would be put forward by those who are now content with the Bills of the Government.

The new Ministry would probably meet such proposals, as the agitations for the removal of Catholic disabilities and the repeal of the Corn Laws were met, namely, by stout resistance ending in unqualified concession.

I beg you to consider these matters maturely before the question comes on for ultimate decision. . . .—I remain, in spite of the case, yours very truly, RUSSELL.

P.S.-Since I wrote this letter I find that Gladstone has accepted Bouverie's instruction to the committee on the Bills. I shall be very glad to see you if you like to call here any morning.

This appeal had not the effect of lessening the difficulties. Long debates ensued before the House resolved itself into committee on the Bill; still longer discussions took place in committee on the County and Borough Franchise. The Government found itself supported by varying and uncertain majorities. At last, on June 18, Lord Dunkellin, the eldest son of Lord Clanricarde, carried a motion against the Government, substituting rating for rental as the basis of the borough franchise. In one sense, the amendment which was thus carried was not of much importance. It was still open to the House to fix any sum as the basis of the franchise, and a £5 rateable value would probably have admitted as many persons

1 By 315 votes to 304.

to the electorate as a £7 rental, But in another sense the division had a significance which it was impossible to ignore. As Lord Russell himself said in the House of Lords, 'Coming after so many attempts to obstruct, delay, and defeat the Bill, we could not but consider that it was hopeless for us to proceed further with it.' The Cabinet accordingly met, and decided on tendering its resignation.

The Queen received the news of her Minister's decision with regret. She would, in any circumstances, have desired to avoid parting with men who had served her so long; and she felt additional apprehension in 1866 because Prussia and Austria were visibly preparing for the struggle which a few days later was to lead to the Seven Weeks' War. In her letters to her Minister she urged continually the necessity for compromise and conciliation; and she probably thought that, when the peace of the world was on one side of the scale and a £7 franchise on the other side, the relative importance of the two things did not require any nice measuring. Lord Russell did not conceal from himself that, in the critical state of the Continent,

persons who had been for some time in communication with foreign powers, whose policy was known to those foreign powers, who had maintained an intimate alliance with both France and Russia, the neutral powers in the present war, might have an advantage over any others who, newly entered upon office, must necessarily be strangers to the correspondence that had been carried on.

But he saw perhaps more distinctly than the Queen that the influence of the country depended on the character of its public men. He wrote to her on May 3—

While your Majesty's Ministers are bound to listen to every proposal of a moderate and conciliatory character, they would be only injuring the country and themselves if they were to assent to any amendment of an insidious character which would deprive them of the support of the Liberal Reformers throughout the country.

He wrote in strong terms, on May 12, to General Grey,