Lord Oxford and Lord Bolingbroke had quarrelled whether one or both should be Earls; but Robert Walpole, a country gentleman of Norfolk, had the sagacity to perceive that the rule of Great Britain was about to pass from the House of Lords to the House of Commons. He refused the title of Earl and the white staff of Lord High Treasurer. As First Lord of the Treasury in the House of Commons, he ruled England for more than twenty years; and when at last he retired to the House of Lords he said to Pulteney, who had accepted the title of Earl of Bath, You and I, my Lord, are now two of the most insignificant fellows in England.'

The next great leader of the House of Commons was William Pitt, who, like Walpole and like Churchill, was a member of a country gentleman's family. William Pitt, unlike Henry Fox, who regarded money more than power, was bold, disinterested, and lofty in his aims. He said of his chief, the Duke of Newcastle, 'The Duke of Newcastle lent me his majority to carry on the government.' He commanded his expeditions against France by placing a sheet of paper over the orders he gave, and leaving at the bottom of the page on which they were written only room for the signatures of the Lords of the Admiralty. In contradiction to his former declamations against Hanover, he gave large subsidies to Frederick of Prussia; and when he got possession of Canada said, I have conquered America in Germany.'

When Lord Chatham disappeared, the Tories obtained a majority in the Cabinet. They lost America ; and, under the guidance of William Pitt the younger, fought against frenzy embodied in the democracy of France. By playing on the fears of England they were enabled to make gigantic efforts, and to raise her debt from one hundred and thirty millions to eight hundred millions. The two athletes who contended on the floor of the House of Commons were Pitt and Fox. Pitt, like his father, had the power of commanding men; his ruinous policy did not prevent his obtaining in the House of Commons attached friends, unbounded admiration, and a majority of twothirds of the representatives of the people.

Fox was a powerful speaker, and, in the words of Burke, the greatest debater the world ever saw. Not place or power, but reputation as an orator, was the object of his ambition, as he declares in one of his earliest letters to an intimate friend and relation. He inspired affection still more than admiration. In his worst days an observer said of his party, 'There are only forty of them, but every one of them is ready to be hanged for Fox.' In his earlier days, Lord Mansfield being asked who that young man was whom he saw in Westminster Hall, answered, That is the son of old Harry Fox, with twice his parts and half his sagacity.'

6

These two men, Charles Fox and William Pitt, set a proper value upon each other's great abilities. Pitt

said of Fox, 'Whenever I have made a better speech than usual, I observe that Fox in his reply surpasses himself.' Of Pitt's great speech on the renewal of the war with France, Fox remarked that he had spoken with an eloquence which Demosthenes would have admired, perhaps have envied.

The errors of Fox-his coalition with Lord North, and his India Bill-were grave; but the warmth of his feelings and his passionate love of liberty should obtain for his memory indemnity for these or even greater faults. His affectionate temper, combined with his love of liberty, won him the attachment of devoted friends. His name ought to be consecrated in the heart of every lover of freedom throughout the globe.

I think I have shown that the faculty of leading the House of Commons does not consist merely in making flashy speeches, but is founded upon qualities which entitle men to obtain as followers a majority in the noblest assembly of freemen in the world.

X

CHAPTER VI.

I FIND that in the sixth chapter, as printed in my volume of Recollections,' I had fallen into several errors, through lapse of memory. But what is worse than this, I have committed an injustice towards Lord Aberdeen, which I am anxious as far as possible to repair.

I will now endeavour, by the help of letters which I have received from Sir Arthur Gordon, to trace the course of events which immediately preceded the breaking out of the war between Russia, on the one side, and Great Britain and France on the other.

In 1853, the Government of Austria framed a note of conciliation which was despatched to St. Petersburgh, to Constantinople, to London, and to Paris, as a way to the settlement of all difficulties. Hence arose several questions of great moment. I will take them in the following order; first, the reception of the Austrian note in London; next, the reception of the note at Constantinople.

What I proposed to Lord Clarendon, was that we

should give no option to Turkey with regard to the acceptance of the Austrian note, that we should propose that Turkey should take the literal acceptance of the Austrian note; and that we should at the same time warn her, that if she did not choose to accept the Austrian note, both in words and in substance, we could no longer aid her in her contest with Russia.

I give here a copy of a letter of mine to Lord Clarendon referring to this proposal :—

Lord John Russell to Lord Clarendon.

'Pembroke Lodge: August 20, 1853. In case I miss you to-day, I will say all I have to say on this small bit of paper.

I think the positive orders given to Stratford must produce their effect. If not, they must be repeated and enforced. The Turks must be told that if they will not make this moderate concession, which is, after all, scarcely more than their own last note, they must be prepared to see the Principalities occupied all the winter. For we cannot abet them in their obstinacy.

6

On the other hand, the Emperor of Russia must not be permitted to go beyond his present positions. He has no case for the invasion of Turkey. If he crosses the Danube, our fleet must go to the Bosphorus. But if he remains quiet, holding his material guarantee, he will have before the spring the diplomatic security