Editing John Russell, 1st Earl Russell (section)

== Prime Minister: 1846–1852<!-- linked from redirects [[First premiership of John Russell]], [[First prime ministership of John Russell]], [[Premiership of Lord John Russell]], [[Prime ministership of Lord John Russell]] -->==

=== Appointment and cabinet ===
{{Further|First Russell ministry}}
Russell took office as prime minister with the Whigs only a minority in the House of Commons and particularly during a time of national crisis, facing "famine, fever, trade failing, and discontent growing", as described in his wife's journal on 14 July.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=141}} It was the bitter split in the Conservative Party over the Corn Laws that allowed Russell's government to remain in power in spite of this, with Sir Robert Peel and his supporters offering tentative support to the new ministry in order to keep the protectionist Conservatives under [[Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby|Lord Stanley]] in opposition. At the [[1847 United Kingdom general election|general election of August 1847]] the Whigs made gains at the expense of the Conservatives, but remained a minority, with Russell's government still dependent on the votes of [[Peelite]] and [[Repeal Association|Irish Repealer]] MPs to win divisions in the Commons.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=154}}

The new cabinet inevitably included Palmerston as Foreign Secretary, [[Charles Wood, 1st Viscount Halifax|Sir Charles Wood]] as the [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]], [[Sir George Grey, 2nd Baronet|Sir George Grey]] as the [[Home Secretary]], [[Henry Grey, 3rd Earl Grey]] as the [[Secretary of State for War and the Colonies]], the [[George Villiers, 4th Earl of Clarendon|Lord Clarendon]] as the [[President of the Board of Trade]], and Lord Lansdowne as President of the council. [[John Hobhouse, 1st Baron Broughton|Sir John Cam Hobhouse]], [[Fox Maule-Ramsay, 11th Earl of Dalhousie|Fox Maule-Ramsay, the Lord Panmure]], and [[Thomas Babington Macaulay|Mr. Thomas Macaulay]] held lesser roles. [[Sir James Graham, 2nd Baronet|Sir James Graham]] declined the [[Governor-General of India|Governor-Generalship of India]] to pursue unfulfilled aspirations in Westminster. The Conservative Party, fractured by Peel's disgrace and suspicion among its factions, lacked effective leadership, with Disraeli yet to be taken seriously. "We are left masters of the field", Palmerston remarked, "not only on account of our own merits, which, though we say it ourselves, are great, but by virtue of the absence of any efficient competitors".{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=141}}

===Domestic agenda===
[[File:The Royal Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851.jpg|thumb|upright=1.59|alt=Group portrait of the Royal Commissioners of the Great Exhibition by Henry Wyndham Phillips|Russell served on the [[Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851|Royal Commission]] for the [[Great Exhibition]], which took place in 1851 while he was Prime Minister. In this group portrait of the Commissioners ''[[The Royal Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851]]'' by [[Henry Wyndham Phillips]], Russell is depicted standing behind [[Albert, Prince Consort|Prince Albert]] (fifth from right).]]
Russell's political agenda was frequently frustrated by his lack of a reliable Commons majority. However, his government was able to secure a number of notable social reforms. In a speech to his constituents, Russell said:{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=142}}

{{Blockquote|text=You may be assured that I shall not desert in office the principles to which I adhered when they were less favourably received. I cannot indeed claim the merit either of having carried measures of Free Trade as a Minister, or of having so prepared the public mind by any exertions of mine as to convert what would have been an impracticable attempt into a certain victory. To others belong those distinctions. But I have endeavoured to do my part in this great work according to my means and convictions, first by proposing a temperate relaxation of the Corn Laws, and afterwards, when that measure has been repeatedly rejected, by declaring in favour of total repeal, and using every influence I could exert to prevent a renewal of the struggle for an object not worth the cost of conflict. The Government of this country ought to behold with an impartial eye the various portions of the community engaged in agriculture, in manufactures, and in commerce. The feeling that any of them is treated with injustice provokes ilbwill, disturbs legislation, and diverts attention from many useful and necessary reforms. Great social improvements are required; public education is manifestly imperfect; the treatment of criminals is a problem yet undecided; the sanitaiy condition of our towns and villages has been grossly neglected. Our recent discussions have laid bare the misery, the discontent, and outrages of Ireland; they are too clearly authenticated to be denied, too extensive to be treated by any but the most comprehensive means.}}

Russell introduced teachers' pensions and used [[Order in Council|Orders in Council]] to make grants for teacher training. Colleges were established to prepare teachers for their roles, and graduates received additional government grants alongside their salaries. Schools that passed official inspections were also eligible for government funding, ensuring accountability and raising educational standards. In 1847, Russell implemented reforms to improve primary education in Britain based on the Melbourne government's earlier initiative of placing oversight for education grants under the [[Privy Council (United Kingdom)|Privy Council]] and also by addressing systemic flaws by replacing unpaid monitors with paid pupil-teachers.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=159}} The [[Baths and wash houses in Britain#Regulation|Public Baths and Wash-houses Acts]] of 1847 and 1848 enabled local authorities to build municipal baths and washing facilities for the growing urban working classes.

Russell was instrumental in addressing social and administrative issues in country. Russell lent his support to the passage of the [[Factories Act 1847]], which restricted the working hours of women and young persons (aged 13–18) in textile mills to 10 hours per day. The bill introduced by from notable social reformers [[Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury|Lord Shaftesbury]] and [[John Fielden]] that was well received by artisans and operatives alike. He supported reforms that provided practical relief to over 363,000 women and children employed in mills and factories, easing the burden of monotonous labor. Russell also transformed the [[Poor Law Commission]] into a ministerial department, making it accountable to Parliament through the President of the Poor Law Board which introduced regulations for workhouse management and guardian meetings, which improving control. Additionally, the growing needs of Manchester were acknowledged with the creation of the Bishopric of Manchester.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|pp=159–160}} In the aftermath of the political and social turmoil that took place during the [[Revolutions of 1848]], fears grew of a similar outcome in Britain particularly in Ireland which led to the passage of the [[Treason Felony Act 1848]] that made it illegal and punishable by [[penal labour]] speaking or writing against the Crown.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=157}}

1848 saw the introduction of the [[Metropolitan Commission of Sewers]] and the [[Public Health Act 1848]] ([[11 & 12 Vict.]] c. 63), by which the state assumed responsibility for sewerage, clean water supply, refuse collection and other aspects of public health across much of England and Wales.{{sfn|Walpole|1889a|pp=454-455}}<ref>Elizabeth Free & Theodore M. Brown, "The Public Health Act of 1848." ''Bulletin of the World Health Organisation'' 83(11) (November 2005)[https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/83/11/866.pdf]</ref> The act was influenced by the work of [[Edwin Chadwick|Sir Edwin Chadwick]] and [[Thomas Southwood Smith|Dr. Thomas Southwood Smith]], addressed the pressing sanitary issues in cities and towns, leading to improvements in public health and the general social conditions of the population. Previously, both Whigs and Tories had largely ignored such practical reforms, despite their clear connection to the community's health and well-being.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=162}}

Russell's determination to extend [[free trade]] led to the repeal of the [[Navigation Acts]].{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=198}}Following the election of [[Lionel de Rothschild]] in the 1847 general election, Russell introduced a Jewish Relief bill, which would have allowed Rothschild and other Jews to sit in the House of Commons without their having to take the explicitly Christian oath of allegiance. In 1848, the bill was passed by the House of Commons, receiving support from the Whigs and a minority of Conservatives (including future prime minister [[Benjamin Disraeli]]). However, it was twice rejected by the Tory dominated House of Lords, as was a new bill in 1851. Rothschild was re-elected in the 1852 general election following the fall of the Russell government but was unable to take his seat until the [[Jews Relief Act 1858|Jews Relief Act]] was finally passed in 1858.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|pp=198–199}}

===Ireland===
Russell's government led the calamitous response to the [[Great Famine (Ireland)|Irish Famine]]. During the course of the famine, an estimated one million people died from a combination of malnutrition, disease and starvation and well over one million more [[Irish diaspora|emigrated from Ireland]].{{sfn|Ross|2002|p=226}} After taking office in 1846, Russell's ministry introduced a programme of public works that by the end of that year employed some half-a-million but proved impossible to administer.{{sfn|Lyons|1973|pp=30–34}} In 1846 Russell reported that in one year more than 50,000 Irish families had been "turned out of their wretched dwellings without pity and without refuge...we have made it the most degraded and most miserable country in the world...all the world is crying shame upon us."<ref>{{cite book |last=Macardle |first=Dorothy |date=1965 |title=The Irish Republic |location=New York |publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux |page=45 }}</ref> In January 1847, the government abandoned this policy, realising that it had failed, and turned to a mixture of "indoor" and "outdoor" direct relief; the former administered in [[workhouse]]s through the [[Irish Poor Laws]], the latter through [[soup kitchen]]s. The costs of the Poor Law fell primarily on the local landlords, some of whom in turn attempted to reduce their liability by evicting their tenants.{{sfn|Lyons|1973|pp=30–34}} In June 1847, the [[Irish Poor Law Extension Act|Poor Law Extension Act]] was passed, which embodied the principle, popular in Britain, that Irish property should support Irish poverty. Irish landlords were believed in Britain to have created the conditions that led to the famine, a view which Russell shared.{{sfn|Taylor|1976|pp=77-78}}

=== Chartists' movement ===
Within six years after the passage of the [[Reform Act 1832|Great Reform Act]] and the accession of the Queen, the [[Chartism|Chartist movement]] grew out of frustration following the [[Reform Act 1832|Great Reform Act]]'s failure to give the vote beyond those who owned property and aimed to extend further political reform.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=163}}<ref>{{Cite web |title=Chartist movement |url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/chartists/overview/chartistmovement/ |access-date=2024-12-19 |publisher=Parliament of the United Kingdom |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=1838 Peoples Charter gallery |url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/2015-parliament-in-the-making/get-involved1/2015-banners-exhibition/ross-sinclair/1838-peoples-charter-gallery/ |access-date=2024-12-19 |publisher=Parliament of the United Kingdom |language=en}}</ref> In 1838, representatives of the working class amplified calls for reform in the [[People's Charter of 1838]] which demanded [[universal manhood suffrage]], equal division of constituencies, vote by [[ballot]]s and abolishing the qualification of owning property in order to sit in Parliament. Following the upheaval in [[Europe]] during the [[Revolutions of 1848]], fears in Britain grew of the similar unrest despite it not being "formidable". The events on the continent eventually inspired the Chartists and demand for reform increased as many in the [[working class]] began to view that their interests were disregarded. The movement was led by the Irish barrister and journalist [[Feargus O'Connor]] who entered Parliament as a follower of [[Daniel O'Connell]] and as member for [[Cork (city)|Cork]].{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=165}} The Chartists planned a protest in April and Russell was at first supportive of the demonstration to take place. He proposed that demonstration be permitted to cross the [[Westminster Bridge]] and be able to present the petition to Parliament itself with the police preventing the protesters from marching to [[Charing Cross]] and regrouping. But by 6 April, Russell's government felt compelled to declare the demonstration illegal.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=166}} On the advice of the [[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington|Duke of Wellington]] the [[Bank of England]], the [[Tower of London]], and the surrounding neighbourhood of [[Kennington Common]] were protected by cavalry and infantry with the entrances to Parliament itself and [[Whitehall]] government offices were protected by artillery.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|pp=166–167}} On 10 April, London braced for a feared uprising as the Chartists planned a massive protest at Kennington Common, but the turnout was far smaller than expected, with many present merely out of curiosity. O’Connor abandoned the march to Parliament, and the petition boasting "five million" signatures contained numerous fictitious ones and was delivered quietly by cab. Heavy rain and public ridicule ultimately dispersed the crowd, ending the agitation with anticlimactic results. Russell characteristically said of the incident: "London escaped the fate of [[Paris]], [[Berlin]], and [[Vienna]]. For my own part, I saw in these proceedings a fresh proof that the people of England were satisfied with the Government under which they had the happiness to live, did not wish to be instructed by their neighbours in the principles of freedom, and did not envy them either the liberty they had enjoyed under Robespierre, or the order which had been established among them by Napoleon the Great."{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=|pp=167–168, 168–169}}

=== Foreign policy ===
Lord Palmerston as [[Foreign Secretary (United Kingdom)|Foreign Secretary]] dominated and often dictated the direction of the foreign policy of the Russell government by advancing British interests often at the frustration of both the Cabinet and the Court.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=169}}{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=173}} It was Palmerston's belief that Britain have a duty to champion [[justice]] and [[liberty]] alongside Britain being able to ensure that its status as a [[great power]] be retained.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=173}} His handling of foreign affairs came with a penchant for personal ascendancy and his policies regarding [[Europe]], particularly in 1848, proved to perilous and led to conflicts with both Russell and the Queen.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=174}} Early during Russell's government, Palmerston's assertive and often confronting treatment of other Cabinet colleagues led to anger among many in Parliament and Robert Peel did not conceal his view that Russell allowed Palmerston to go beyond his restrains. However, Palmerston's position at the [[Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office|Foreign Office]] proved to be consequential and despite being in 'substantial' agreement with his foreign secretary, Russell disapproved of Palmerston's unpredictable and independent action.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=170}}

Russell's own approach to Europe and in general diplomacy was shaped by the pressing need for stability amidst a volatile political landscape. Russell believed that Britain's interests were best served by maintaining the territorial settlements established after the [[Napoleonic Wars]] in the [[Congress of Vienna]] in 1815. However, Russell was also keenly aware that Britain should not cling to outdated alliances or strategies if more favourable alternatives were available.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=171}} Russell's diplomatic strategy was heavily influenced by pragmatism, particularly when it came to [[Austrian Empire|Austria's]] weakening position in [[Italy]], knowing that Austria was no longer in a position to restore its formal control over the Italian peninsula and lacked both military and financial resources to endure a prolonged conflict, especially with the likelihood of French intervention. Russell, therefore, proposed that the British delegation should exert diplomatic pressure on Vienna to relinquish [[Lombardy]] and [[Venice]], thereby averting further escalation and preserving the [[Balance of power (international relations)|balance of power]] in Europe.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=172}}

In addition to the "Italian question", Russell had a nuanced policy towards [[Spain]] and [[Germany]]. On Spain, he adopted a non-interventionist stance, arguing that Britain had no strategic interest in involving itself in Spain's internal affairs. This approach was consistent with Russell's philosophy of respecting the sovereignty of European nations, as long as their actions did not threaten British interests. However, Russell's immediate attention turned to Germany, where the [[Schleswig–Holstein question]] posed a significant risk of destabilising the region. The dispute, which involved competing claims over the duchies of [[Schleswig, Schleswig-Holstein|Schleswig]] and [[Holstein]], threatened to ignite war in [[Central Europe]]. In his [[state paper]], Russell stated: "It is our interest to use our influence as speedily and as generally as possible to settle the pending questions and to fix the boundaries of States. Otherwise, if war once becomes general, it will spread over Germany, reach [[Belgium]], and finally sweep England into its vortex. Should our efforts for peace succeed, Europe may begin a new career with more or less of hope and of concord; should they fail, we must keep our sword in the scabbard as long as we can, but we cannot hope to be neutral in a great European war. England cannot be indifferent to the supremacy of France over Germany and Italy, or to the advance of [[Russia]]n armies to [[Constantinople]]; still less to the incorporation of Belgium with a [[Second French Empire|new French Empire]]."{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=172}}

In contrast to Russell's cautious policy, Palmerston's approach was characterised by a more independent and often combative stance. Palmerston was known for his willingness to go against the established norms of British and European diplomacy, even when this put him at odds with the Court and his cabinet colleagues. His interventions in foreign affairs, particularly his support for interventionist policies, often led to tensions within the government. Despite facing opposition, Palmerston remained unfazed by criticism and continued to champion his views with remarkable resilience. Unlike Russell, who sought to avoid open conflict and maintain stability through diplomacy, Palmerston was more willing to take bold if not rash action, even if they risked alienating allies or provoking international disputes.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|pp=172–173, 173–174}} By the end of the parliamentary session in 1849, Palmerston found himself in a precarious political position. His policies had generated considerable opposition, both from within the Cabinet and from the Opposition. The growing dissatisfaction with his approach threatened his political future, as several of his colleagues and rivals sought to discredit him. In a letter to his brother, he reflected on the political turbulence of the past months and on winning the success he deserves by writing: "After the trumpetings of attacks that were to demolish first one and then another of the Government: first me, then Grey, then Charles Wood; we have come triumphantly out of the debates and divisions, and end the session stronger than we began it."{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=174}}

=== Relations with the Roman Catholic Church ===
In the first half of his premiership Russell aimed to improve the British government's relations with the papacy and the Catholic clergy in Ireland, which he saw as one of the keys to making Ireland a more willing part of the United Kingdom. Russell proposed to make an annual grant of £340,000 to the Catholic Church in Ireland, with the aim of ameliorating Irish Catholic opinion towards [[Acts of Union 1800|the Union]]. In 1847, Russell's father-in-law the [[Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, 2nd Earl of Minto|Earl of Minto]] was dispatched on a confidential mission to Rome to seek the [[Pius IX|Pope's]] support for the grants plan. In the end, the idea had to be abandoned due to Catholic objections to what they saw as an attempt to control their clergy.{{sfn|Scherer|1999|pp=158-159}}

However, Russell pressed ahead with plans to re-establish formal diplomatic relations between the [[Court of St James's]] and the [[Holy See]], which had been severed when [[James II of England|James II]] was deposed in 1688. Russell managed to pass an Act to authorise an exchange of ambassadors with Rome, but not before the bill was amended by Parliament to stipulate that the Pope's ambassador must be a [[layman]]. The Pope refused to accept such a restriction on his choice of representative and so the exchange of ambassadors did not take place.{{sfn|Prest|2009}} It would not be until 1914 that formal [[Holy See–United Kingdom relations|UK-Vatican diplomatic relations]] were finally established.
 
Relations with the papacy soured badly in late 1850 after [[Pius IX|Pope Pius IX]] issued the [[papal bull|bull]] ''[[Universalis Ecclesiae]]''. By this bull Pius unilaterally reintroduced Catholic bishops to England and Wales for the first time since the [[English Reformation|Reformation]]. Anti-Catholic feelings ran high with many Protestants incensed at what they saw as impertinent foreign interference in the prerogative of the established [[Church of England]] to appoint bishops. Russell, not withstanding his long record of advocating civil liberties for Catholics, shared the traditional Whig suspicion of the Catholic hierarchy, and was angered at what he saw as a papal imposition. On 4 November 1850, in a letter to the [[Edward Maltby|Bishop of Durham]] published in ''The Times'' the same day, Russell wrote that the Pope's actions suggested a "pretension to supremacy" and declared that "No foreign prince or potentate will be permitted to fasten his fetters upon a nation which has so long and so nobly vindicated its right to freedom of opinion, civil, political, and religious". Russell's "Durham letter" won him popular support in England but in Ireland it was viewed as an unwarranted insult to the Pope. It lost Russell the confidence of Irish Repealer MPs and the cabinet were angered that he had made such an incendiary statement without having consulting them.{{sfn|Reid|1895|pp=188-189}}

The following year Russell passed the [[Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1851]] with Tory support, which made it a criminal offence carrying a fine of £100 for anyone outside of the Church of England to assume an episcopal title "of any city, town or place, or of any territory or district...in the United Kingdom." The Act was widely ignored without consequences and only served to further alienate Irish MPs, thereby weakening the government's position in the Commons.{{sfn|Prest|2009}}

===Disagreements with Palmerston ===
Russell frequently clashed with his headstrong Foreign Secretary, [[Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston|Lord Palmerston]], whose belligerence and support for continental revolution he found embarrassing. In 1847 Palmerston provoked a confrontation with the French government by undermining the plans of the Spanish court to marry the young [[Isabel II of Spain|Spanish Queen]] and [[Infanta Luisa Fernanda, Duchess of Montpensier|her sister]] into the French royal family.{{sfn|Walpole|1889b|pp=1-10}}
He subsequently clashed with Russell over plans to increase the size of the army and the navy to defend against the perceived threat of French invasion, which subsided after the overthrow of the [[Louis Philippe I|French king]] in 1848.{{sfn|Walpole|1889b|pp=13-25}} [[Louis Philippe I|Louis Philippe's]] flight from [[Paris]] signalled a new spark of revolutionary fervour throughout Europe and next went to [[Austrian Empire|Austria]], where a student revolt forced [[List of heads of government under Austrian emperors|Austrian Chancellor]] [[Klemens von Metternich|Count Metternich]] out of the country and take up refuge in England with [[Ferdinand I of Austria|Emperor Ferdinand]] considering asylum in [[Tyrol]]. The spirit of revolution soon spread to [[Milan]], [[Naples]]; [[Berlin]] and [[Switzerland]].{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=179}}

In 1850, further tension arose between the two over Palmerston's [[gunboat diplomacy]] in the [[Don Pacifico affair]], in which Palmerston sought compensation from the [[Government of Greece|Greek government]] for the ransacking and the burning of the house of [[David Pacifico]], a Gibraltarian holder of a British passport.{{sfn|Chambers|2004|p=313}} Russell considered the matter "hardly worth the interposition of the British lion," and when Palmerston ignored some of his instructions, the Prime Minister wrote to Palmerston telling him he had informed the Queen that he "thought the interests of the country required that a change should take place at the Foreign Department."{{sfn|Walpole|1889b|pp=56-60}} However, less than a month later [[Edward Geoffrey Smith Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby|Lord Stanley]] successfully led the House of Lords into passing a motion of censure of the Government over its handling of the affair and Russell realised that he needed to align with Palmerston in order to prevent a similar motion being passed by the House of Commons, which would have obliged the Government to resign.{{sfn|Walpole|1889b|pp=61-62}} The Government prevailed, but Palmerston came out of the affair with his popularity at new heights since he was seen as the champion of defending British subjects anywhere in the world.{{sfn|Chambers|2004|pp=323–4}}

=== Fall of ministry and resignation ===
In France, the ambitious rather than able [[Napoleon III|Louis Napoleon]], the elected [[President of France]] provoked a [[1851 French coup d'état|self-coup d'état]] and overthrew the [[National Assembly of 1851|National Assembly]] and revised the [[French Constitution of 1848|Constitution of 1848]]. Both the Cabinet and the Court were alarmed by the incident and felt the need to declare "absolute neutrality" and instructions were given to the British ambassador [[Constantine Phipps, 1st Marquess of Normanby|Lord Normanby]].{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=179}} By the time the official communication was made, Normanby was met with news that Palmerston had met with the French ambassador and declared the coup "a act of self-defence".{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=180}} Russell forced Palmerston to resign as Foreign Secretary after Palmerston recognised [[Napoleon III]]'s coup of 2 December 1851 without first consulting the Queen or Cabinet.<ref>G. H. L. Le May, "The Ministerial Crisis of 1851." ''History Today'' (June 1951), Vol. 1 Issue 6, p52-58</ref> Palmerston was offered the position of [[Viceroy of Ireland]] but refused out of contempt.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=181}} Russell recognised that the dismissal of Palmerston have significantly weakened his government's position and the matter only grew dire after [[George Villiers, 4th Earl of Clarendon|Lord Clarendon]] declined the position at the Foreign Office. Russell later appointed [[Granville Leveson-Gower, 2nd Earl Granville|Lord Granville]] as Foreign Secretary.{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=182}} Russell tried to strengthen his government by recruiting leading Peelites such as [[Sir James Graham, 2nd Baronet|Sir James Graham]] and [[Henry Pelham-Clinton, 5th Duke of Newcastle|the Duke of Newcastle]] to his administration, but they declined.{{sfn|Walpole|1889b|p=143}} Out of office, Palmerston sought revenge by turning a vote on a militia bill into a [[Motions of no confidence in the United Kingdom|vote of confidence]] in the Government. A majority vote in favour of an amendment proposed by Palmerston caused the downfall of Russell's ministry on 21 February 1852. This was Palmerston's famous "tit for tat with Johnny Russell."{{sfn|Prest|2009}} According to his brother-in-law, the [[George Elliot (Royal Navy officer, born 1784)|Hon. George Elliot]], Russell said following his resignation that "Its all fair. I dealt him a blow and he has given me one in return."{{Sfn|Reid|1895|p=195}}