Lady John Russell Part 20

Painfully anxious day. Cabinet to decide on Reform or no Reform this session.

Came here early with the children, wishing to be cheerful for John's sake, and knowing how much power Pembroke Lodge and the children have to make me so. Found this place most lovely; the day warm and bright as June; the children like larks escaped from a cage. At half-past seven John came looking worn and sad--no Reform, and no resignation! Not a man in the Cabinet agreed with him that it would be best to go on with Reform; though several would have consented had he insisted, but he did not. Not one would hear either of his resignation or of Lord Palmerston's. In short--the present Ministry at any price. John dissatisfied with his colleagues, and worse with himself. May G.o.d watch over him and guide him.

LONDON, _April_ 11, 1854

The great day is over, and thank G.o.d John has stood the trial, and even risen, I believe, in the estimation of his followers and of men in general. The regrets, disapprobation, despair, reproaches that a.s.sailed him from the various sections of his party, on the rumours of his resignation, were of a kind that would have made it wrong in him to persist; for they proved that the heartiest reformers were against it, and would uphold him in remaining in the Government.

There was deep silence when he rose. It was soon plain that the disposition of his supporters was good; and throughout his n.o.ble, simple, generous, touching speech he was loudly cheered by them, and often by all sides.

At the close there were a few words about his own position: he said that the course he was taking was open to suspicion from those who supported him--that if he had done anything--Here his voice failed him, and there burst forth the most deafening cheers from all parts of the House, which lasted for a minute or two, till he was able to go on. If he had done anything for the cause of Reform he still hoped for their confidence. If not, his influence would be weakened and destroyed, and he could no longer lead them. This was the substance--not the words. It was a great night for him. He risked more than perhaps ought to be risked, but he has lost nothing, I trust and believe, and I hope he has gained more than the enthusiasm of a day. May G.o.d ever guide and bless him.

_Mr. George Moffatt, M.P., to Lady John Russell_

103 EATON SQUARE, _April_ 12, 1854

DEAR LADY JOHN RUSSELL,--Pardon my saying one word upon the touching event of last evening. A parliamentary experience of nine years has never shown me so striking an instance of respectful homage and cordial sympathy as was then elicited. I know that the unbidden tears gushed to my cheeks, and looking round I could see scores of other careless, worldly men struck by the same emotion--and even the Speaker (as he subsequently admitted to me) was affected in precisely the same manner. The German-toy face of the Caucasian was of course as immovable as usual, but Mr. Walpole wept outright. I sincerely trust that the kindly enthusiasm of this moment may have in some measure compensated for the vexations and annoyances of the last two months.

Believe me, your faithful servant,

GEO. MOFFATT

_Mr. John Boileau to Lady Melgund_

LONDON, _April_ 12, 1854

I wish I could write you a long letter giving an account of last night in the House of Commons.... I would not have missed last night for the world. It was a melancholy instance of what a public servant in these days may have to go through, at the same time such a n.o.ble example of patriotism and self-sacrifice as I believe there is not another man in England capable of giving--and though I cannot yet resign my feeling that it would have been better in the end both for Lord John and the Liberal party had he resigned, at present I have nothing to do but to admire, love, and respect more than ever the man who could, for the sake of his country and what he believes in his judgment to be the best for her, go through as painful a struggle as he has.... The scene in the House itself I shall never forget--the sudden pause when he began to speak of himself and his position--the sobs, and finally the burst of tears, and the almost ineffectual attempt to finish the remaining sentences, and at last obliged to give it up and sit down exhausted with the protracted struggle and the strain of nerve. He was loudly cheered from both sides of the House.

_Lord John Russell to Mr. John Abel Smith_ [42]

_April_ 12, 1854

DEAR SMITH,--As I find some rumours have been mentioned to Lady John, false in themselves and injurious to me, I beg to a.s.sure you that it has been the greatest comfort to me to find that I received from her the best encouragement and support in the course which I ultimately adopted. She could not fail to perceive and to sympathize in the deep distress which the prospect of abandoning the Reform Bill caused me, and it was my chief consolation during a trying period to find at home regard for my fame and reputation as a sincere and earnest reformer. That regard has now been shown by the House of Commons generally, but there is no man in that House on whose friendship I more confidently rely, and with good reason, than yourself.

Yours ever truly,

J. RUSSELL

[42] Lord John's election agent.

_Lord Spencer to Lady John Russell_

LEAMINGTON, _April_ 14, 1854

DEAR LADY JOHN,--I cannot resist giving you the trouble to read a few lines from me on Lord John's speech the other night.

Remembering the conversation we had on the subject of the proposed Reform Bill, when I ventured, perhaps too boldly and too roundly, to let out my unworthy opinion in a contrary sense, I think I ought to tell you that I had arrived some time ago at the same conclusion which Lord John announced to the House of Commons the other night, and I really believe if I had not, his reasons would have made me.

I never read a more convincing speech, and I never read so affecting a one. No man living, I believe, could have made that speech but your husband, and it gives me great pleasure to offer you my heartfelt congratulations upon it.... Pray forgive me, dear Lady John, for intruding thus on your time, and believe me,

Very faithfully yours,

SPENCER

_Lady John Russell to Lord Minto_,

PEMBROKE LODGE, _April_ 24, 1854

MY DEAREST PAPA,--... I must dash at once into my subject, having only a quarter of an hour to spend on it. It is that of John's position; he has, I believe, raised his character in the country by the withdrawal of the Reform Bill. His motives are above suspicion and unsuspected; whereas, owing to the singular state of the public mind, it seems pretty sure that they _would_ have been, though most unjustly, suspected, had he persisted in his resignation. But in the Cabinet I do _not_ think his position improved, rather the reverse. The policy of the timid and the shabby and the ambitious and the cunning and the illiberal triumphed; and all experience teaches me that John, having made a great sacrifice, will be expected to make every other that _apparent expediency_ may induce his colleagues to require. He will always be pressed and urged and taunted with obstinacy, etc., and told that he will ruin his reputation, if for the sake of one question on which he may happen to differ with them, he exposed his country to the awful danger of a change of Ministry.... It is for the avowed purpose of carrying on the war with vigour that Reform and other things are thrown aside. The Ministry has not asked the House of Commons or the country to declare, but has declared itself indispensable to the country, and the only possible Ministry competent to carry on the war. But if it has already proved, and if it daily goes on to prove, itself incompetent in time of peace to carry on measures of domestic improvement, and more specially incompetent either to prepare for or prosecute a great war, has John done right, has he done what the welfare of the country requires, in lending himself so long as its indispensable prop? It is not incompetent from want of ability, but of unity.... He is considered by them to have wedded himself to them for better for worse more closely than ever by the withdrawal of Reform.... The wretched fears and delays and doubts which have, I firmly believe, first produced this war, and then made its beginning of so little promise, have had no effect as warnings for the future.... There will probably soon be great pressure put upon him to take office.... Nothing but the fact of his having no office, of his only part in the Government being _work,_ has made him struggle along a very dangerous way unattacked and unhurt.... With his opinion of Lord Aberdeen's Ministry he would be _doing wrong,_ though from no worse motives than excess of deference to those with whom he acts, were he, after giving up Reform, to give up the degree of independence which he now has.... You can now partly conceive how doubtful I feel (and he does too) whether the withdrawal of Reform will ultimately be an advantage, though it is obvious that a break-up on that was more to be deprecated than on almost any other subject. John said this morning of his own accord that he feared he had been wrong in ever joining this Ministry. I wake every morning with the fear of some terrible national disaster before night, of disasters which could be borne if they were unavoidable, but will be unbearable if they could have been avoided. Do _not,_ pray, think me a croaker without good reason for croaking. The greatness of the occasion is not understood.

Ever, my dearest Papa,

Your affectionate child,

F.R.

Matters were coming to a crisis in the Cabinet. The autumn and early winter of 1854 brought the victories of Alma, Balaclava, and Inkerman. As the country grew prouder of its soldiers its indignation at the way the civil side of the war had been organized increased. The incompetence of the War Office made the Government extremely unpopular, and a motion was brought forward in the House of Commons charging them with the mismanagement of the war. Directly after Mr. Roebuck had given notice of a motion for a Committee of Inquiry, Lord John wrote to Lord Aberdeen that since he could not conscientiously oppose the motion, he must resign his office. The view which most historians have taken of this step is that it was an act of cowardly desertion on his part. As a member of the Government, he was as responsible as his colleagues for what had been done, and by resigning he was admitting that they deserved disgrace. Quotations from two important historical books will show the view which has been generally taken of his action.

Lord Morley, in his "Life of Gladstone," says:

... When Parliament a.s.sembled on January 23, 1855, Mr. Roebuck on the first night of the session gave notice of a motion for a Committee of Inquiry. Lord John Russell attended to the formal business, and when the House was up went home, accompanied by Sir Charles Wood. Nothing of consequence pa.s.sed between the two colleagues, and no word was said to Wood in the direction of withdrawal. The same evening, as the Prime Minister was sitting in his drawing-room, a red box was brought in to him by his son, containing Lord John Russell's resignation. He was as much amazed as Lord Newcastle, smoking his evening pipe of tobacco in his coach, was amazed by the news that the battle of Marston Moor had begun. Nothing has come to light since to set aside the severe judgment p.r.o.nounced upon this proceeding by the universal opinion of contemporaries, including Lord John's own closest political allies. That a Minister should run away from a hostile motion upon affairs for which responsibility was collective, and this without a word of consultation with a single colleague, is a transaction happily without precedent in the history of modern English Cabinets. [43]

[43] Morley's "Life of Gladstone," vol. i, p. 521. See also Lord Stanmore's "Earl of Aberdeen," chap. X.

Mr. Herbert Paul, in his brilliant "History of Modern England," gives a version of this occurrence, which, on the whole, is hardly less harsh towards Lord John.

Well might Lord Palmerston complain of such behaviour as embarra.s.sing. It was crippling. It furnished the Opposition with unanswerable arguments.

"Here," they could say, "is the second man in your Cabinet, in his own estimation the first, knowing all that you know, and he says 'that an inquiry by the House is essential. How then can you deny or dispute it?'"

In a foot-note he adds, "Lord John offered to withdraw his resignation if the Duke of Newcastle would retire [from the War Office] in favour of Palmerston. It had been settled before Christmas between Lord Aberdeen and the Duke that this change should be made. But no one else was aware of the arrangement, and Lord Aberdeen, though he had a.s.sented to it, declined to carry it out as the result of a bargain with Lord John."

Now both these versions leave out an important fact in the private history of the Aberdeen Cabinet. Lord John had on two occasions at least, subsequent to giving way upon the question of the Reform Bill, tried to resign. Only the entreaties of the Queen and his colleagues had induced him to remain in the Ministry; and then, it was understood, only until some striking success of arms should make his resignation of less consequence to them. But Sevastopol did not fall, and Lord John hung on, urging in the meantime, emphatically and repeatedly, that the efficiency of the war administration must be increased, that the control must be transferred from the hands of the two Secretaries of War to the most vigorous Minister, Palmerston. At the Cabinet meeting of December 6th, Lord John desisted from pressing this particular change, owing to Palmerston having written to him that he thought there were "no broad and distinct grounds" for removing the Duke of Newcastle, and confined himself, after criticizing the general conduct of the war, to announcing his intention of resigning in any case after Christmas. When it was objected that such an announcement was inconsistent with his remaining leader of the House of Commons till then, he offered to resign at once. He would have gladly done so had they not implored him to remain. On December 30th he drew up a memorandum of his criticisms upon the conduct of the war; and on January 3rd he wrote to Lord Aberdeen: "Nothing can be less satisfactory than the result of the recent Cabinets. Unless you will direct measures for yourself, I see no hope for the efficient prosecution of the war...."[44]

[44] For a full account of these incidents the reader must be referred to Sir Spencer Walpole's "Life of Lord John Russell," chap. xxv.

When, therefore, on January 23rd, the Opposition demanded an inquiry, he was in a very awkward position. He had either to bar the way to changes he had been urging himself all along, or he was obliged to admit openly that he agreed with the critics of the Government. Had he chosen the first alternative he would have been untrue to his conviction that a change of method in conducting the war was absolutely essential to his country's success; yet in choosing the second he was turning his back on his colleagues. No doubt the custom of the Const.i.tution asks either complete acceptance of common responsibility from individual Ministers or their immediate resignation. Lord John had protested and protested, but he had _not_ resigned; he was therefore responsible for what had been done while he was in the Cabinet. He had not resigned because he thought it bad for the country that the Government should be weakened while the war was at its height, and he had hoped that by staying in the Cabinet he would be able to induce the Ministry to alter its methods of conducting the war.

When he discovered that, in spite of reiterated protests, he could not effect these all-important changes from within, and when the House of Commons began to clamour for them from without, he decided that no considerations of loyalty to colleagues ought to make him stand between the country and changes so urgently desirable. It may be said that since he had acted all along on the ground that in keeping the strength of the Government intact lay the best chance of helping to bring the war to a successful and speedy conclusion, he was inconsistent, to say the least, in deserting his colleagues at a juncture which made their defeat inevitable.

But the inconsistency is only superficial; when he once had lost hope that the Government could be got to alter their methods of conducting the war, their defeat and dissolution, which he had previously striven to prevent, became the lesser of two evils. It was not an evil at all, as it turned out, for the dissolution brought the right man--Palmerston--into power.

Lord John's mistake was in thinking that his long-suffering support of a loose-jointed, ill-working Ministry, like the Aberdeen Ministry, could have ever transformed it into a strong one.

Lord Wriothesley Russell, [45] whom Lady John wrote of years before as "the mildest and best of men," sent her a letter on February 8, 1855, containing the following pa.s.sages:

It is impossible to hear all these abominable attacks in silence.

It makes me sad as well as indignant to hear the world speaking as if straight-forward honesty were a thing incredible--impossible. A man, and above all a man to whom truth is no new thing, says simply that he cannot a.s.sent to what he believes to be false, and the whole world says, What can he mean by it--treachery, trickery, cowardice, ambition, what is it? My hope is that our statesmen may learn from John's dignified conduct a lesson which does not appear hitherto to have occurred to them--that even the fate of a Ministry will not justify a lie. We all admire in fiction the stern uprightness of Jeanie Deans: "One word would have saved me, and she would not speak it." ... Whether that word would have saved them is a question--it was their only chance--and he would not speak it; that word revolted his conscience, it would have been false. I know nothing grander than the sublime simplicity of that refusal.

[45] Lord John's stepbrother.