Lady John Russell Part 21

Nearly two years later, Lord John Russell, in a letter to his brother, the Duke of Bedford, said:

... The question with me was how to resist Roebuck's motion. I do not think I was wrong in substance, but in form I was. I ought to have gone to the Cabinet and have explained that I could not vote against inquiry, and only have resigned if I had not carried the Cabinet with me. I could not have taken Palmerston's line of making a feeble defence.

How absurd it is to suppose that cowardice could have dictated Lord John's decision at this time, his behaviour in circ.u.mstances to be recounted in the next chapter shows. Unpopular as his resignation made him with politicians, it was nothing to the storm of abuse which he was forced to endure when he chose, a few months later, to stand--now an imputed trimmer--for the sake of preserving what was best in a policy he had not originally approved.

The troubles and differences of the Coalition Ministry did not lessen Lord John's regard for Lord Aberdeen, of whom he wrote in his last years: "I believe no man has entered public life in my time more pure in his personal views, and more free from grasping ambition or selfish consideration."

Mr. Rollo Russell, on the publication of Mr. John Morley's "Life of Gladstone," wrote the following letter to the _Times_ in vindication of his father's action with regard to Mr. Roebuck's motion:

DUNROZEL, HASLEMERE, SURREY, _November,_ 1903

SIR,--In his admirable biography of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Morley has given, no doubt without any intention of injury, an impression which is not historically correct by his account of my father's resignation in January, 1855, on the notice of Mr. Roebuck's motion for a Committee of Inquiry. I do not wish to apply to his account the same measure which he applies by quoting an ephemeral observation of Mr. Greville to my father's speech, but I do maintain that "the general effect is very untrue."

Before being judged a man is ent.i.tled to the consideration both of his character and of the evidence on his side. In the chapter to which I allude there is no reference to the records by which my father's action has been largely justified. There is no mention, I think, of these facts: that my father had again and again during the Crimean War urged upon the Cabinet a redistribution of offices, the more efficient prosecution of the war, the provision of proper food and clothing for the Army, which was then undergoing terrible privations and sufferings, a better concert between the different Departments, and between the English and French camps, and, especially, the appointment of a Minister of War of vigour and authority. "As the welfare of the Empire and the success of the present conflict are concerned," he wrote at the end of November to the head of the Government, "the conduct of the war ought to be placed in the hands of the fittest man who can be found for the post." He laid the greatest stress on more efficient administration.

The miseries of the campaign increased. On January 30, 1855, Lord Malmesbury wrote: "The accounts from the Crimea are dreadful. Only 18,000 effective men; 14,000 are dead and 11,000 sick. The same neglect which has. .h.i.therto prevailed continues and is shown in everything."

He held very strong views as to the duty of the House of Commons in regard to these calamities. "Inquiry is the proper duty and function of the House of Commons.... Inquiry is at the root of the powers of the House of Commons."

He had been induced by great pressure from the highest quarters to join the Cabinet, and on patriotic grounds remained in office against his desire. He continually but unsuccessfully advocated Reform. Several times he asked to be allowed to resign.

When, therefore, Mr. Roebuck brought forward a motion embodying the opinion which he had frequently urged on his colleagues, he could not pretend the opposite views and resist the motion for inquiry.

The resignation was not so sudden as represented. On the 6th of December, 1854, when the Cabinet met, he declared that he was determined to retire after Christmas; after some conference with his colleagues, he wrote on December 16th to Lord Lansdowne: "I do not feel justified in taking upon myself to retire from the Government on that account [the War Office] at this moment." It is not the case that a severe judgment was p.r.o.nounced upon these proceedings by the "universal" opinion of his contemporaries. His brother. Lord Wriothesley Russell, wrote: "It makes one sad to hear the world speaking as if straightforward honesty were a thing incredible, impossible." And the Duke of Bedford: "My mind has been deeply pained by seeing your pure patriotic motives maligned and misconstrued after such a life devoted to the political service of the public." But the whole world was not against him. Among many letters of approval, I find one strongly supporting his action with regard to the Army in the Crimea and his course in quitting the Ministry, and quoting a favourable article in _The Examiner;_ another strongly approving, and stating: "I have this morning conversed with more than fifty gentlemen in the City, and they _all_ agree with me that in following the dictates of your conscience you acted the part most worthy of your exalted name and character.... We recognize the importance of the principle which you yourself proclaimed, that there can be no sound politics without sound morality." Mr. John Dillon wrote: "To have opposed Mr. Roebuck's motion and then to have defended what you thought and knew to have been indefensible would have been not a fault but a crime."

Another wrote expressing the satisfaction and grat.i.tude of the great majority of the inhabitants of his district in regard to his "efforts to cure the sad evils encompa.s.sing our brave countrymen;"

and another wrote: "The last act of your official life was one of the most honourable of the sacrifices to duty which have so eminently distinguished you both as a man and a Minister."

There was no doubt a common outcry against the act of resignation at the time, but the outcry against certain Ministers of the Peelite group was still louder, and their conduct, as Mr. Morley relates, was p.r.o.nounced to be "actually worse than Lord John's."

"Bad as Lord John's conduct was," wrote Lord Malmesbury on February 22, 1855, "this [of Graham, Gladstone, and Herbert] is a thousand times worse."

The real question, however, is not what the public thought at the time, but what a fuller knowledge of the facts will determine, and I contend that my father's dissatisfaction with the manner in which the war was conducted, and his failure to induce the Cabinet to supply an effective remedy, justified if it did not compel his resignation.

Mr. Roebuck's motion accelerated a resignation which the Prime Minister knew had been imminent during the preceding ten weeks.

My father himself admitted that he made great mistakes, that for the manner of his resignation he was justly blamed, and that he ought never to have joined the Coalition Ministry. He had a deep sense, I may here say, of Mr. Gladstone's great generosity towards him on all occasions. At this distance of time the complication of affairs and of opinions then partly hidden can be better estimated, and the conduct of seceders from the Government cannot in fairness be visited with the reprobation which was natural to contemporaries. The floating reproaches of the period in regard to my father's action seem to imply, if justified, that he ought to have publicly defended the conduct of military affairs which he had persistently and heartily condemned. It appears to me that not only his candid nature, but the story of his life, refutes these reproaches, as clearly as similar reproaches are refuted by the life of Gladstone.

Yours faithfully,

ROLLO RUSSELL

CHAPTER VIII

1855

The debate upon Roebuck's motion of inquiry lasted two nights, and at its close the Aberdeen Ministry fell, beaten by a majority of 157. Historians have seen in this incident much more than the fall of a Ministry.

Behind the question whether the civil side of the Crimean campaign had been mismanaged lay the wider issue whether the Executive should allow its duties to be delegated to a committee of the House of Commons. "The question which had to be answered," says Mr. Bright in his "History of England," "was whether a great war could be carried to a successful conclusion under the blaze of publicity, when every action was exposed not only to the criticism and discussion of the Press, but also to the more formidable and dangerous demands of party warfare within the walls of Parliament."

After both Lord John and Lord Derby had failed to form a Government, the Queen sent for Lord Palmerston.

Lady John, when her husband was summoned to form a Government, wrote to him from Pembroke Lodge on February 3, 1855:

All the world must feel that the burden laid upon you, though a very glorious, is a very heavy one.... Politics have never yet been what they ought to be; men who would do nothing mean themselves do not punish meanness in others when it can serve their party or their country, and excuse their connivance on that ground. That ground itself gives way when fairly tried. You are made for better days than these. I know how much better you really are than me....

You have it in your power to purify and to reform much that is morally wrong--much that you would not tolerate in your own household.... "Whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are honest," on these things take your stand--hold them fast, let them be your pride--let your Ministry, as far as in you lies, be made of such men, that the more closely its deeds are looked into, the more it will be admired.... Pray for strength and wisdom from above, and G.o.d bless and prosper you, dearest.

But Lord John failing to find sufficient support, Lord Palmerston became Prime Minister. His first Cabinet was a coalition. It included, besides some new Whig Ministers, all the members of the previous Cabinet with the exception of Lord John, Lord Aberdeen, and the Duke of Newcastle. But on Palmerston accepting the decision of the last Parliament in favour of a Committee of Inquiry, Gladstone, Sidney Herbert, and Sir James Graham resigned; their reason being that the admission of such a precedent for subordinating the Executive to a committee of the House was a grave danger to the Const.i.tution.

It looked as though the Ministry would fall, when Lord John, who had previously refused office, to the surprise and delight of the Whigs, accepted the Colonies. His motives in taking office will be found in the following letters. He had already accepted a mission as British Plenipotentiary at the Conference of Vienna, summoned by Austria to conclude terms of peace between the Allies and Russia. He did not therefore return at once to take his place in the Cabinet, but continued on his mission. Its consequences were destined to bring down on him such a storm of abuse as the careers of statesmen seldom survive. When Gladstone and the Peelites resigned, Palmerston's Ministry ceased to be a coalition and became a Whig Cabinet. The fact that Lord John came to Palmerston's rescue, that he accepted without hesitation a subordinate office and served under Palmerston's leadership in the Commons, shows that Lord John's reluctance to serve in the first instance under Lord Aberdeen could not have been due to a scruple of pride; nor could his obstinate insistence upon his own way inside the Cabinet, of which the Peelites had complained in the early days of Lord Aberdeen's Ministry, have been caused by a desire to make the most of his own importance.

_Lord John to Lady John Russell_

PARIS, _February_ 23, 1855

I have accepted office in the present Ministry. Whatever objections you may feel to this decision, I have taken it on the ground that the country is in great difficulty, and that every personal consideration ought to be waived. I am sure I give a Liberal Government the best chance of continuing by so acting. When I come home, I shall have weight enough in the Cabinet through my experience and position. In the meantime I go on to Vienna.... I shall ascertain whether peace can be made on honourable terms, and having done this, shall return home.

The office I have accepted is the Colonial; but as I do _not_ lead in the Commons, it will not be at all too much for my health.

_Mr. John Abel Smith to Lady John Russell

February_ 24, 1855

I received this morning, to my great surprise, a letter from Lord John announcing his acceptance of the Seals of the Colonial Department.... I believe it to be unquestionably the fact that by this remarkable act of self-sacrifice he has saved Lord Palmerston's Government and preserved to the Liberal party the tenure of power.... I never saw Brooks's more thoroughly excited than this evening, and some old hard-hearted stagers talking of Lord John's conduct with tears in their eyes.

_Lord John to Lady John Russell_

BRUSSELS, _February 25,_ 1855

The wish to support a Whig Government under difficulties, the desire to be reunited to my friends, with whom when separated by two benches I could have had no intimate alliance, the perilous state of the country with none but a pure Derby Government in prospect, have induced me to take this step. No doubt my own position was better and safer as an independent man; but I have thrown all such considerations to the winds.... I am very much afraid of Vienna for the children; but if you can arrive and keep well, it will be to me a great delight to see you all.... I have just seen the King, who is very gracious and kind. He thinks I may make peace.

_Lady John to Lord John Russell_

PEMBROKE LODGE, _February 26,_ 1855

Mr. West called yesterday, and was full of admiration of the magnanimity of your conduct, but not of its wisdom. J.A. Smith writes me a kind letter telling me of the delight of your late calumniators at Brooks's. Frederick Romilly says London society is charmed. He touched me very much. He spoke with tears in his eyes of the generosity of your motives, and of the irreparable blow to yourself and the country from your abandonment of an honourable and independent position for a renewal of official ties.... Papa is very grave and unhappy, doing justice of course to your motives, but fearing that in sacrificing yourself you sacrifice the best interests of the country.

_Lord John to Lady John Russell_

BERLIN, _March 1,_ 1855

It was necessary in order to have any effect to decide at once on my acceptance or refusal of office. I considered the situation of affairs to be a very serious one. I had hoped that Lord Palmerston, with the a.s.sistance of the Peelites, might go through the session.

Suddenly the secession took place, producing a state of affairs such as no man ever remembered. Confidence in the Government was shaken to a very great extent by the mortality and misery of our Army in the Crimea. I could not resist inquiry; but having yielded that point, it seemed dastardly to leave men, who had nothing to do with sending the expedition to the Crimea, charged with the duty of getting the Army out of the difficulty. Yet it was clear that Lord Palmerston's Government without my help could hardly stand, and thus the Government of 1854 would have been convicted of deserting the task they had undertaken to perform. There remained the personal difficulty of my serving under Palmerston in the House of Commons; for my going to the House of Lords would have been only a personal distinction to me and would not have helped Palmerston in his difficulty. In the circ.u.mstances of the case I thought it right to throw aside every consideration of ease, dignity, and comfort.