right to leave him in the dark upon a matter which seems to me of vital importance.  I need not tell you that your intention causes him the deepest regret, and he feels, as I do, how essential it is that nothing should be known of it at present.  We are not even in possession of the facts that led to Drouyn’s resignation.

    Yours sincerely,

    CLARENDON

“Moved by this appeal,” says Sir Spencer Walpole, “and by Lord Palmerston’s personal entreaties, thrice repeated, Lord John withdrew his resignation.  Its withdrawal, however convenient it may have seemed to the Government at the time, was one of the most unfortunate circumstances of Lord John’s political career.  It directly led to misunderstandings and to obloquy, such as few public men have ever encountered.”

    LONDON, May 8, 1855

    John given up thoughts of resignation.  Glad of it, since he can
    honourably remain.  I know how his reputation would have
    suffered—­not as an honest man, but as a wise statesman.

This was the second time in Lord John’s career that his loyalty to the Whig party involved him in a false position.  On May 24th Disraeli proposed a vote of censure on the Government for their conduct of the war and condemning their part in the negotiations at Vienna.  Lord John made, in reply to Gladstone and Disraeli, an extremely forcible speech, urging that the limitation of the number of Russian ships in the Black Sea did not give sufficient guarantee to the safety of Turkey.  Shortly afterwards the Austrian Chancellor, Count Buol, published the fact that Lord John had been in favour of this very compromise, which Austria had proposed at the Congress.  He was at once asked whether this was true, and he admitted that it was.  He could not explain that he had taken a different line on his return because, had he stuck to his opinion, the French alliance would have been endangered.  The Emperor was persuaded that the fall of Sevastopol was necessary to the safety of his throne.  Marshal Vaillant had said to him, “I know the feelings of the Army.  I am sure that if, after having spent months in the siege of Sevastopol, we return unsuccessful, the Army will not be satisfied.” [47] Since this was the case, Lord John had had to choose between resigning on the strength of his own opinion that the Austrian terms were good enough, thus bringing about the fall of the Ministry and a possible breach with France, or relinquishing his own opinion and defending the view of the Government and the Emperor in order to preserve a good understanding with the French.  Of course, to all the world it looked as though, for the sake of office, he had belied his own convictions.  Seldom has any Minister of the Crown been placed in a more painful position.  The Cabinet knew the true circumstances of the case, and the reason why he could give no explanation for his inconsistency:  but many of his friends did not.  A motion of censure was proposed against him, and now that his presence in the Ministry had ceased to be a support, and had actually become a source of weakness through the condemnation passed on him by the country at large, he offered to resign.