aper bill, as having violated in
substance and practically the constitution. Meanwhile his
unpopularity flows on.

IV

The rejection of the bill affecting the paper duty by the Lords was
followed by proceedings set out by Mr. Gladstone in one of his political
memoranda, dated May 26, 1860:--

Though I seldom have time to note the hairbreadth 'scapes of which
so many occur in these strange times and with our strangely
constructed cabinet, yet I must put down a few words with respect
to the great question now depending between the Lords and the
English nation. On Sunday, when it was well known that the Paper
Duties bill would be rejected, I received from Lord John Russell a
letter which enclosed one to him from Lord Palmerston. Lord
Palmerston's came in sum to this: that the vote of the Lords would
not be a party vote, that as to the _thing done_ it was right,
that we could not help ourselves, that we should simply acquiesce,
and no minister ought to resign. Lord John in his reply to this,
stated that he took a much more serious view of the question and
gave reasons. Then he went on to say that though he did not agree
in the grounds stated by Lord Palmerston, he would endeavour to
arrive at the same conclusion. His letter accordingly ended with
practical acquiescence. And he stated to me his concurrence in
Lord Palmerston's closing proposition.

Thereupon I wrote an immediate reply. We met in cabinet to
consider the case. Lord Palmerston started on the line he had
marked out. I think he proposed to use some meaningless words in
the House of Commons as to the value we set on our privileges, and
our determination to defend them if attacked, by way of garniture
to the act of their abandonment. Upon this I stated my opinions,
coming to the point that this proceeding of the House of Lords
amounted to the establishment of a revising power over the House
of Commons in its most vital function long declared exclusively
its own, and to a divided responsibility in fixing the revenue and
charge of the country for the year; besides aggravating
circumstances upon which it was needless to dwell. In this
proceeding nothing would induce me to acquiesce, though I
earnestly desired that the mildest means of correction should be
adopted. This was strongly backed in principle by Lord John; who