^{page 45 note 1} The correspondence of Lord Aberdeen and Princess Lieven, ed. Parry, E. Jones, ii. 640Google Scholar; Maxwell, Herbert, Life and letters of the 4th Earl of Clarendon, I 354Google Scholar.

^{page 45 note 2} The exclusion of Aberdeen or of Palmerston from such an alliance was; see Greville, C. F. C., A journal of the reign of Queen Victoria from 1833 to 1852 (London, 1885), iii. 176, 437–8Google Scholar. On one occasion the exclusion of both was mooted; see Ellice, to Aberdeen, , 31 12 1851, in Selections from the correspondence of George, Earl of Aberdeen, K.G., K.T., Part III, 1850–60 (privately printed, without date), p. 210Google Scholar. These printed selections from Aberdeen's correspondence are available in the Manuscripts Department of the British Museum, catalogue reference, Press C. 35. d.

^{page 45 note 3} Morley unaccountably transposed this comment of Gladstone's applied it to the idea of ‘Peelism single-handed’; see Morley, John, Life of William Ewart Gladstone (Lloyd's popular edition, London, 1908), i. 310Google Scholar. In fact, Gladstone's memorandum of 25 February 1852, in Add. MS. 44778, shows that he referred to a ‘junction with the liberals’.

^{page 46 note 1} For the idea of conservative reunion see Gladstone's memoranda of December 1848 and 27 February 1850 in Add. MS. 44777; Parry, Jones, op. cit., ii. 384, 421Google Scholar; and Stanley to Aberdeen, 14 June 1851, in Add. MS. 43072, fo. 180. For the possibility of a junction between Palmerston and the protectionists see Graham to Peel, 13 November 1849, in Add. MS. 40452, and Greville, , op. cit., iii. 396Google Scholar (where he also refers to the idea of a Whigprotectionist combination) and 448–9. For the Whigs' connexion with the protectionists see Lincoln to Peel, 18 November 1847, in Add. MS. 40481, and The Croker Papers ed. Jennings, Louis J. (2nd edn. London, 1885), iii. 238–9Google Scholar.

^{page 46 note 2} Morley, , op. cit., i. 261Google Scholar; Gladstone's memorandum of 23 April 1851 in Add. MS. 44777; Martineau, John, Life of Henry Pelham, 5th Duke of New-castle, p. 112, n.Google Scholar; Argyll to Aberdeen, 27 February 1852, and Aberdeen, to Russell, , 8 08 1852, in Aberdeen Correspondence, loc. cit., pp. 244–6, 329–30Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 3} Memorandum of December 1852 in Add. MS. 44778.

^{page 47 note 1} In using this analysis, more commonly applied to politics before the first Reform Act, I have found, as Mr. Kitson Clark has shown, ‘how near to the political morals and methods of the eighteenth century was much that went on in the middle of the nineteenth.’ Kitson Clark, G. S. R., ‘The Electorate and the Repeal of the Corn Laws’, Trans. R. Hist. Soc., 5th Series, i (1951), IIIGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ The most recent biographer of the prince consort has claimed, for example, that the coalition of 1852 was ‘the creation of Prince Albert’ who ‘enjoyed more political power and influence than any English sovereign since King Charles II’ (Fulford, Roger, The Prince Consort, pp.152, 117Google Scholar).

^{page 47 note 3} Gordon, Arthur, Stanmore, Lord, The Earl of Aberdeen, p. 323Google Scholar. ‘He who undertakes to write the life of a public man incurs obligations to historical truth which are paramount. … But the claims of filial piety are not less imperative.’

^{page 48 note 1} Morley, , op. cit., i. 259–61Google Scholar. The biographers of Disraeli also pointed out the weakness of the Peelite group in the parliament of 1847–52, but they were mainly concerned to demonstrate the influence of ‘Disraeli' policy’ in bringing this about. See Monypenny, W. F. and Buckle, G. E., Life of Benjamin Disraeli, iii. 379Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 2} My calculations of Peel's following are based on Dod, C. R., Electoral Facts 1832–53 (2nd edn. London, 1853). Peel's comment to Aberdeen is in Add. MS. 43065, fos. 322–6, and Add. MS. 40455, fos. 434–7Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 3} Morley, , op. cit., i. 260Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 4} Parker, C. S., Sir Robert Peel, iii, 532–3Google Scholar, giving an extract from a letter in Add. MS. 40603.

^{page 48 note 5} Morley, , op. cit., i. 276Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 1} Gladstone to Newcastle, 22 October 1851, in Add. MS. 44262.

^{page 49 note 2} Morley, , op. cit., i. 315Google Scholar, quoting a memorandum of 1876.

^{page 49 note 3} The divisions of 26 April, 6 May and 7 June; in the first the government majority was 150, including 63 quondam Peelites, in the second these figures were 131 and 36, and in the third, 72 and 34. See Hansard, 3rd series, cxx. 1185–8; cxxi. 346–9 and cxxii, 181–2.

^{page 49 note 4} Gladstone's memorandum of 12 March 1852 in Add. MS. 44778; and Mrs. Herbert to Gladstone, 15 May 1852, in Add. MS. 44210. For individual results in the general election of 1852 I have relied on Dod, op. cit.

^{page 50 note 1} 15 former Peelites stood successfully as Derbyites and 6 as liberals; 18 candidates were defeated standing as liberal-conservatives.

^{page 50 note 2} Hansard, 3rd series, cxxiii. 1693–5. In August 1852 Russell wrote sarcastically to Aberdeen, ‘I hear that Mr. S. Herbert reckons that of the 50 Peelites, 27 will vote with Ministers and 23 against. This is a somewhat odd account of an united party.’ Netherby MSS. (I am greatly indebted to Sir Fergus Graham for his permission to make use of the manuscripts at Netherby.)

^{page 50 note 3} Russell to Graham, 30 October 1852, in Netherby MSS.

^{page 51 note 1} Hardinge to Graham, 6 October 1851, in Netherby MSS. Cornewall Lewis made much the same point in a letter to Graham of 20 April 1848 in Add. MS. 40452.

^{page 51 note 2} Add. MS. 43304, fos. 48–51. Cf. Maxwell, , op. cit., i. 315, 330Google Scholar, and Life of John, Lord Campbell, ed. Hon.Hardcastle, Mary Scarlett (London, 1881), ii. 306Google Scholar. Economic conditions also played an important part in influencing the decisions of politicians in these years. To some extent it was the revival of agricultural prosperity during 1851 which made political reconstruction more feasible by putting an end to protection as a practical policy. But a purely economic interpretation of political developments in 1851–2 meets the insuperable objection that, when protection was finally abandoned, Peel's staff did not rejoin their old party but merged with the liberals.

^{page 52 note 1} Cardwell to Bonham, 23 October 1851, in Add. MS. 40617.

^{page 52 note 2} Greville, , op. cit., iii. 199Google Scholar. Brougham, to Aberdeen, , 08 1848, in Aberdeen Correspondence, loc. cit., pp. 22–4Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 3} Martin, Theodore, Life of the Prince Consort, ii. 297Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 4} Morley, , op cit., i. 276Google Scholar, quoting a memorandum of 1876. For Newcastle's view see Martineau, , op. cit., p. 99Google Scholar; and for Aberdeen's comment see Balfour, Lady F., Life of George, 4th Earl of Aberdeen, ii. 158Google Scholar.

^{page 53 note 1} ‘Correspondence of Earl of Aberdeen. 1850–1853’, The Edinburgh Review, clviii (1883), 548Google Scholar.

^{page 53 note 2} Maxwell, , op. cit., i. 276Google Scholar.

^{page 53 note 3} Douglas, George, 8th Duke of Argyll, Autobiography and Memoirs, i. 388Google Scholar. The Journal of Mrs. Arbuthnot, ed. Bamford, Francis and the Duke of Wellington, i. 84Google Scholar, and cf. ii. 73. Maxwell, , op. cit., i. 352Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 1} Morley, , op. cit., ii. 620Google Scholar; Martineau, , op. cit., p.106Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 2} Six months before he became prime minister Aberdeen attended a dinner party at which he sat next to the radical M.P., Horsman. Afterwards, he wrote with surprise to his son that Horsman had ‘appeared gentlemanlike and well-informed’ and had even spoken with ‘moderation and good sense’. ‘I suppose’, he concluded in explanation of this unexpected phenomenon, ‘he was on his guard.’ See Aberdeen Correspondence, loc. cit., pp. 290–1.

^{page 54 note 3} Aberdeen to Everett, 13 January 1853, in Add. MS. 43301.

^{page 54 note 4} Aberdeen, to Graham, , 29 08 1847, in Selections from the Correspondence of George, Earl of Aberdeen, K.G., K.T., 1845–8 (privately printed at Colombo, 1885)Google Scholar. Londonderry to Aberdeen, 8 March 1851, in Add. MS. 43247, fos. 184–6. See also Greville, , op. cit., iii. 418Google Scholar.

^{page 55 note 1} Morley, , op. cit., i. 58Google Scholar; Stanmore, Lord, Sidney Herbert, i. 14Google Scholar; and University Calendar (Oxford, 1832), p. 146Google Scholar.

^{page 55 note 2} Add. MS. 44778; Argyll, , op. cit., I. 380–1Google Scholar.

^{page 55 note 3} Stanmore, , op. cit., i. 82Google Scholar. Cf. Churchill, W. S., The Second World War, i. 251Google Scholar. ‘The Sermon on the Mount is the last word in Christian ethics. Everyone respects the Quakers. Still, it is not on these terms that Ministers assume their responsibilities of guiding States.’

^{page 55 note 4} Morley, , op. cit., i. 366, n. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 55 note 5} Peel, recognizing this feature of Newcastle's character, once wrote of him that ‘his predominant feeling is and will continue to be equal hatred of the Whigs and of the purely protectionist party’. Peel to Graham, 29 September 1848, in Netherby MSS.

^{page 56 note 1} The letters of Queen Victoria, ed. Benson, A. C. and Esher, Viscount (London, 1908), ii. 261–4Google Scholar.

^{page 56 note 2} Lewis to Graham, 27 January 1851, and Clarendon to Graham, 18 December 1850, both in Netherby MSS.

^{page 56 note 3} Graham to Cardwell, 27 January 1852, in Netherby MSS. This letter is printed in truncated form by Parker, C. S., Life and letters of Sir James Graham, ii. 152Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 1} Monypenny, and Buckle, , op. cit., iii. 272Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 2} Stanmore, , op. cit., i. 136–7, 133–4Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 3} SirLewis, George Cornewall, Letters to various friends, ed. Lewis, Gilbert Frankland (London, 1870), p. 238Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 4} Letters of Queen Victoria, ii. 295, and Martin, , op. cit., ii. 353, n. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 58 note 1} Gathorne Hardy, 1st Earl of Cranbrook, ed. Hardy, A. E. Gathorne, i. 79–80Google Scholar. In fact the crisis lasted from 21 February to 3 March 1851.

^{page 58 note 2} Letters of Queen Victoria, ii. 296, and Greville, , op. cit., iii. 388Google Scholar. According to protectionist gossip at this time, Graham's terms were six cabinet places; see Earl, of Malmesbury, Memoirs of an Ex-Minister (2nd edn. London, 1884) i. 277Google Scholar.

^{page 58 note 3} Add. MS. 44777, fos. 322–9, and Morley, , op. cit., i. 301, n. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 58 note 4} Martin, , op. cit., ii. 352Google Scholar.

^{page 58 note 5} Letters of Queen Victoria, ii. 299. Greville, , op. cit., iii. 390Google Scholar.

^{page 59 note 1} Ellice, to Aberdeen, , 20 10 1851, in Aberdeen Correspondence, Part III, 1850–60, pp. 161–2Google Scholar.

^{page 59 note 2} Graham to Aberdeen, 5 May 1851, in Add. MS. 43190, fos. 205–7. Cf. Greville, , op. cit. iii. 394Google Scholar, and Campbell, , op. cit., ii. 291Google Scholar.

^{page 59 note 3} Graham to Aberdeen, 31 August 1851, in Add. MS. 43190.

^{page 59 note 4} Aberdeen to Graham, 4 September 1851, in Netherby MSS.

^{page 60 note 1} Morley, , op. cit., i. 302–3Google Scholar, quoting a memorandum of April 1851, and the omitted passages from this in Add. MS. 44777. Gladstone, to Aberdeen, , 11 10 1851, in Aberdeen Correspondence, loc. cit., p. 158Google Scholar. Gladstone to Newcasde, 22 October 1851, in Add. MS. 44262.

^{page 60 note 2} Stanmore, , op. cit., i. 145Google Scholar; Martineau, , op. cit., p. 106Google Scholar; and Newcasde to Aberdeen, 16 December 1851, Add. MS. 43197, fos. 1–2. Parker, , op. cit., ii. 133Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 3} Maxwell, , op. cit., i. 327Google Scholar. Graham to Aberdeen, 28 January 1852, in Add. MS. 43190. Russell's concern to placate the court was further demonstrated by his choice of Granville rather than Clarendon to succeed Palmerston; see Letters of Queen Victoria, ii. 345; Fulford, , op. cit., p. 137Google Scholar; and Maxwell, , op. cit., i. 337Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 4} Aberdeen, to Graham, , 12 January 1852, in Aberdeen Correspondence, loc. cit., p. 231Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 1} Graham to Aberdeen, 21 October 1851, in Add. MS. 43190; and Oswald to Gladstone, 29 December 1851, in Add. MS. 44371.

^{page 61 note 2} Graham to Aberdeen, 25 December 1851, in Add. MS. 43190; part of this letter is given by Parker, , op. cit., ii. 143Google Scholar. Aberdeen, to Graham, , 27 12 1851, in Aberdeen Correspondence, loc. cit., p. 206Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 3} Letters of Queen Victoria, ii. 359–60; Martineau, , op. cit., pp. 108–10Google Scholar; Parker, , op. cit., ii. 150Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 4} Graham to Aberdeen, 6 January 1852, in Add. MS. 43190. Newcastle to Aberdeen, 2 January 1852, in Add. MS. 43197. Aberdeen to Graham, 16 January 1852 (written from Clumber), in Netherby MSS.

^{page 62 note 1} Add. MS. 43190.

^{page 62 note 2} Graham to Cardwell, 27 January 1852, in Netherby MSS. Graham to Aberdeen, 18 January 1852, in Add. MS. 43190.

^{page 62 note 3} Aberdeen, to Graham, , 27 01 1852, in Aberdeen Correspondence, loc. cit., p. 232Google Scholar, and again, on 29 January, in Netherby MSS. The second letter is incomplete, but internal evidence establishes that it was written from Windsor, almost certainly on 29 January.

^{page 62 note 4} Letters of Queen Victoria, ii. 372, 375. Gladstone's memorandum of 25 February 1852, in Add. MS. 44778. Gladstone thought that Stockmar had been sent to influence Aberdeen; certainly these two were in touch about this time, see Add. MS. 43247, fo. 243.

^{page 63 note 1} Letters of Queen Victoria, ii. 369–70.

^{page 63 note 2} Leaves from the diary of Henry Greville, ed. Enfield, Viscountess (London, 1883), p. 418Google Scholar. Herbert to Graham, 11 March 1852, in Netherby MSS.

^{page 63 note 3} Cardwell to Graham, 24 April 1852, in Netherby MSS.

^{page 63 note 4} Gladstone's memorandum of 26 February 1852, in Add. MS. 44778.

^{page 63 note 5} Parry, Jones, op. cit., ii. 625Google Scholar.

^{page 64 note 1} Gladstone's memorandum of 11 March 1852, in Add. MS. 44778. Morley, , op. cit., i. 311Google Scholar. Martineau, , op. cit., p. 113Google Scholar.

^{page 64 note 2} Estimates of Derby's supporters after the elections varied between 300 and 320; only Disraeli pretended he had 330, cf. Greville, C. F. C., op. cit., iii. 459Google Scholar. For the various estimates see Russell to Graham, 14 July, Graham to Russell, 17 July, and Russell to Graham, 26 July 1852, all in Netherby MSS.; Ellice, to Aberdeen, , 31 07 1852, in Aberdeen Correspondence, loc. cit., pp. 307–10Google Scholar; and Goulburn to Aberdeen, 27 August 1852, in Add. MS. 43196.

^{page 64 note 3} W. P. Snell to Aberdeen, 30 June, and Aberdeen's reply of 2 July 1852 are both in Add. MS 43247. In acting in this way Aberdeen was following the advice of Gladstone and Bonham; see Add. MS. 43070, fos. 254–5.

^{page 64 note 4} Edinburgh Review, loc. cit., p. 560.

^{page 64 note 5} Graham to Aberdeen, 31 July 1852, in Add. MS. 43190, and Newcastle, to Aberdeen, , 2 August 1852, in Add. MS. 43197, summarized in Edinburgh Review, loc. cit., p. 562Google Scholar.

^{page 65 note 1} Gladstone to Aberdeen, 30 July and 5 August 1852, in Add. MSS. 43070 and 44088. These letters were used by Morley, , op. cit., i. 319Google Scholar, by Stanmore, in his Aberdeen, pp. 208–9Google Scholar, and in his Herbert, i. 160. See also Herbert to Gladstone, 11 August 1852, in Add. MS. 44210.

^{page 65 note 2} Russell to Graham, 24 July 1852, in Netherby MSS.; Russell to Aberdeen, 21 July 1852, in Walpole, Spencer, Life of Lord John Russell, ii. 154–5Google Scholar. For a selection from the letters exchanged between these three at this time see Aberdeen Correspondence, loc. cit., pp. 297–358.

^{page 65 note 3} Graham to Russell, 26 July 1852, in Netherby MSS.

^{page 65 note 4} Edinburgh Review, loc. cit., p. 560; Aberdeen to Russell, 8 August 1852, in Add. MS. 43066; Aberdeen to Newcastle, 12 August 1852, in Add. MS. 43197; and Aberdeen to Graham, 15 August 1852, in Netherby MSS.

^{page 66 note 1} Aberdeen to Russell, 8 and 16 August 1852, in Add. MS. 43066. Aberdeen to Newcastle, 31 August 1852, in Add. MS. 43197. Aberdeen to Graham, 31 August 1852, in Netherby MSS.

^{page 66 note 2} Graham to Aberdeen, 5 and 6 August 1852, in Add. MS. 43190. These letters are printed with large omissions and changes of phrase in Parker, , op. cit., ii. 172Google Scholar.

^{page 66 note 3} Graham to Aberdeen, 11 August 1852, in Add. MS. 43190.

^{page 66 note 4} Graham to Aberdeen, 5 and 12 September 1852, in Add. MS. 43190; Aberdeen to Graham, 10 September 1852, and Graham to Russell, 21 September 1852, both in Netherby MSS.

^{page 66 note 5} Aberdeen to Graham, 27 September 1852, in Netherby MSS. The first part of this letter is printed in Parker, , op. cit., ii. 179–80Google Scholar.

^{page 66 note 6} Aberdeen to Graham, 7 and 12 October 1852, in Netherby MSS. The first of these letters is misdated 2 October in the copy in Add. MS. 43333.

^{page 66 note 7} Graham to Russell, 26 October 1852, in Netherby MSS.

^{page 67 note 1} Gladstone to Aberdeen, 27 October 1852, in Add. MS. 43070. Herbert, to Aberdeen, , 22 October 1852, printed in Stanmore, , Herbert, i. 162–5Google Scholar.

^{page 67 note 2} Walpole, , op. cit., ii. 158–9Google Scholar. The Panmure Papers, ed. SirDouglas, George and SirRamsay, George, i. 36Google Scholar.

^{page 67 note 3} Aberdeen, to Graham, , 8 11 1852, in Aberdeen Correspondence, loc. cit., pp. 397–9Google Scholar, printed in part in Edinburgh Review, loc. cit., p. 566.

^{page 67 note 4} Greville, C. F. C., A journal of the reign of Queen Victoria from 1852 to 1860 (London, 1887), i. 32–3Google Scholar. Hansard, 3rd series, cxxiii. 1693–5.

^{page 67 note 5} Monypenny, and Buckle, , op. cit., iii. 422–3Google Scholar; Bell, H. C. F., Lord Palmerston, ii. 70Google Scholar; Ashley, E., Life and Correspondence of Viscount Palmerston (London, 1879), ii. 255Google Scholar.

^{page 67 note 6} Morley, , op. cit., i. 324Google Scholar.

^{page 67 note 7} Letters of Queen Victoria, ii. 414. The influence of the court during the building of the cabinet should not be exaggerated. Thus Clarendon was chosen as Russell's successor at the Foreign Office, not Granville; St. Leonards did not remain as lord chancellor, though the queen would have preferred him to do so, and Graham went to the Admiralty in spite of her disapproval. Even Gladstone's appointment as chancellor of the exchequer resulted from Graham's refusal to take that position, which had first been pressed on him ‘notwithstanding the royal wish’ that Gladstone should have it. See Letters of Queen Victoria, ii. 415, 420–1,423–4; also Morley, , op. cit., i. 332–3Google Scholar.

^{page 68 note 1} Stockmar to Aberdeen, 21 December 1852, in Add. MS. 43248.

^{page 68 note 2} Argyll, , op. cit., i. 378.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 3} Argyll, , op. cit., i. 388Google Scholar.