ladstone wrote to the archbishop
(June 4), that the bill should be read a second time. But if I
compare two methods, both inexpedient, one that of rejection on
the second reading, the other that of a second reading followed by
amendments inconsistent with the principle, I know no argument in
favour of the latter, except what relates to the very important
question of the position and true interest of the House of Lords
itself.

At the same time he promised the archbishop that any views of his upon
amendments would have the most careful attention of himself and his
colleagues, and "they would be entertained in a spirit not of jealousy but
of freedom, with every desire to bring them into such a shape that they
may be in furtherance, and not in derogation, of the main design of the
bill."

General Grey, the Queen's secretary, told Mr. Gladstone that she had
communicated with the archbishop, "having heard that violent counsels were
likely to prevail, and that in spite of their leaders, the opposition in
the House of Lords was likely to try and throw out the measure on the
second reading." Her own feeling was expressed in General Grey's letter to
the archbishop of the same date, of which a copy was sent to the prime
minister:--

Mr. Gladstone is not ignorant (indeed the Queen has never
concealed her feeling on the subject) how deeply her Majesty
deplores the necessity, under which he conceived himself to lie,
of raising the question as he has done; or of the apprehensions of
which she cannot divest herself, as to the possible consequences
of the measure which he has introduced. These apprehensions, her
Majesty is bound to say, still exist in full force; but
considering the circumstances under which the measure has come to
the House of Lords, the Queen cannot regard without the greatest
alarm the probable effect of its absolute rejection in that House.
Carried, as it has been, by an overwhelming and steady majority
through a House of Commons, chosen expressly to speak the feeling
of the country on the question, there seems no reason to believe
that any fresh appeal to the people would lead to a different
result. The rejection of the bill, therefore, on the second
reading, would only serve to bring the two Houses into collision,
and to prolong a dangerous agitation on the subject.

Mr. Gladstone replied:--

_June 5