1852-55
Although the Russell Ministry had been defeated upon the Militia Bill ("my
tit-for-tat with John Russell," as Palmerston called it), the victors were
very unlikely to hold office for long. In spite of Disraeli's praise of
Free Trade during the General Election, a right-about surprising and
disconcerting to his colleagues, the returns left the strength of parties
much as they had been before. The Conservatives did not lose ground, but
they did not gain it; they remained stronger than any other single party,
but much weaker than Whigs, Peelites, and Irish combined. When Parliament
met it was obvious that they would soon be replaced in office by some kind
of coalition. Defeat came on Disraeli's Budget. The question remained, who
could now undertake to amalgamate the various political groups, which,
except in Opposition, had shown so little stable cohesion? Since the
downfall of the Derby Government had been the work of a temporary alliance
between Peelites and Whigs, the Queen sent for representatives of both
parties; for Lord Aberdeen as the leader of Peel's followers and for Lord
Lansdowne as the representative of the Whigs. Naturally she did not wish to
summon Palmerston after what had happened; and to have charged Lord John,
the other Whig leader, with the formation of a Ministry would have widened
the discrepancies within the Whig party itself; for Lord John was unpopular
with the Protestant Nonconformist section of the party, who were indignant
with him for not strictly enforcing the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and he
had alienated the numerous believers in Palmerston by having forced him to
resign. Lord Lansdowne was universally respected, and since he belonged to
the rear-guard of the Whig party there seemed a better chance of his
coalescing with the Conservatives. When he declined, pleading gout and old
age, the task devolved upon Lord Aberdeen, who accepted the Queen's
commission knowing that Palmerston was willing to take office and work
_with_, though never again (he said) _under_, [39] Lord John. It
was most important that both the leaders of the Whig party, Palmerston and
Russell, should come into the Cabinet; for if either stayed outside a
coalition, which by its Conservative tendencies already excluded Radicals
of influence like Cobden and Bright, it could not have counted upon steady
Whig support. Would Lord John consent to take office? Upon his decision
depended, in Lord Aberdeen's opinion, the success or failure of the
coalition. He had some talk with Lord John before accepting the Queen's
commission, which persuaded him that he could rely upon Lord John's
consent; but it is clear that at that time Lord John did not consider the
matter decided.
[39] Although he asserted at the time that he would never serve under Lord
John again, yet it appears that he was the only one of Lord John's
colleagues who was willing to serve under him, when Lord John attempted to
succeed Lord Aberdeen. Morley's "Life of Gladstone," vol. i, p. 531.
_Lady John Russell to Lady Mary Abercromby_
LONDON, _December_ 24, 1852
God grant our present good accounts may continue. [Lady Minto had
been and was then alarmingly ill.] The two last letters have made
me as little unhappy as is possible, considering how much there is
still to dread.
Whenever my thoughts are not with Mama, they are wearying
themselves to no purpose in threading the maze of ravelled
politics, or rather political arrangements, in which we are living.
Since I have been in _public life_, I never spent a week of
such painful _public anxiety_. When I say that the possibility
of John taking office under Lord Aberdeen was always an odious one
to me, and one which seemed next to an impossibility, don't for one
moment suppose that I say so on the ground of personal claims and
personal ambition, which I hold to be as wrong and selfish in
politics as in everything else. And I shall feel a positive
pleasure, far above that of seeing him _first,_ in seeing him
give so undoubted a proof of disinterestedness and patriotism as
consenting to be _second_, if that were all. But oh, the
danger of other sacrifices--sacrifices as fatal as that one would
be honourable to his name--and oh, the infinite shades and grades
of want of high motives and aims which, at such a time, one is
doomed to find out in the buzzers who hover round the house--while
the honest and pure and upright keep away and are silent. At times
I almost wish I could throw away all that is honest and pure and
upright, as useless and inconvenient rubbish of which I am half
ashamed. I never felt more keenly or heavily the immeasurable
distance between earth and heaven than now, when after the day has
been spent in listening to the plausibilities of commonplace
politicians, I open my Bible at night. It is going from darkness
into light.
And now you have had enough of my grumpiness, and I shall only add
that all has not been pain and mortification. On the contrary, some
men have come out bright and true as they were sure to do, and have
shown themselves real friends to John and the country, and redeemed
the class of politicians from a sweeping condemnation which would
be most unjust.
After much hesitation Lord John determined to serve under Lord Aberdeen. He
was persuaded to do so, in spite of strong misgivings, by the Queen, who
was anxious to avoid the last resort of calling in Palmerston; her request
was backed by the appeals of his most trusted political friends.
_Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell_
OSBORNE, _December_ 19, 1852
The Queen has to-day charged Lord Aberdeen with the duty of forming
an Administration, which he has accepted. The Queen thinks the
moment to have arrived when a popular, efficient, and durable
Government could be formed by the sincere and united efforts of all
parties professing Conservative and Liberal opinions. The Queen,
knowing that this can only be effected by the patriotic sacrifice
of personal interests and feelings to the public, trusts that Lord
John Russell will, as far as he is able, give his valuable and
powerful assistance to the realization of this object.
Lord John's hesitation seems to have been not unnaturally interpreted by
many contemporaries as the reluctance of an ex-Prime Minister to take a
subordinate position, and some records of this impression have found their
way into history. We have Lady John's assurance that "this never for one
moment weighed with him," and that his hesitation was entirely due to "the
improbability of agreement in a Cabinet so composed, and therefore the
probable evil to the country." His true feeling was shown by a remark made
at that time by Lady John, that her husband would not mind being "shoeblack
to Lord Aberdeen" if it would serve the country. [40]
[40] Stuart Reid's "Life of Lord John Russell," p. 205.
It may be pointed out in corroboration that three years later Lord John was
willing to serve under Palmerston himself, both in the House of Commons and
the Cabinet, though the latter had thwarted him at every turn in the
previous Ministry, and hardly hoped for such generous support. A man in
whom scruples of pride were strong emotions would have found far greater
cause for standing out then, than at this juncture. Indeed, such an
interpretation of his motives does not agree with the impression which Lord
John's character leaves on the mind. From his reserved speech, shy manner,
and uncommunicative patience under criticism, from the silent abruptness of
his decisions, his formidable trenchancy in self-defence when openly
attacked, and his aloofness from any attempts to curry favour with the
Press, it may be inferred that his character was a dignified one; but he
was dignified precisely in the way which makes such actions as taking a
subordinate political position particularly easy. He foresaw that his
position would be one of extreme difficulty, but not--here lay his
error--that it would prove an impossible one. It must be remembered that by
subordinating himself he was also in a certain measure subordinating his
party. The Whigs were contributing the majority of votes in the House of
Commons, and they demanded that they should be proportionately powerful in
the Cabinet. He was therefore forced to arrogate to himself an exceptional
position in the Cabinet as the leader and representative of what was in
fact a separate party. The Whigs kept complaining that he did not press
their claims to office with sufficient importunity, while the Peelites
reproached him with refusing to work under his chief like every other
Minister. Whenever he subordinated the claims of the Whigs for the sake of
working better with Lord Aberdeen, he laid himself open to charges of
betraying his followers, and when he pressed their claims, he was accused
of arrogance towards his chief. This, however, was a dilemma, the vexations
of which wore off as places were apportioned and the Ministry got to its
work; there was a more fatal incongruity in his position. He was
technically a subordinate Minister, pledged to reform (as Prime Minister he
had opposed a Radical Reform Bill on the ground that he would introduce his
own), and the representative of the strongest party, also pledged to
reform, in a coalition Cabinet anxious for the most part to seize the first
excuse to postpone it indefinitely. In ordinary circumstances, if thwarted
by his colleagues he would have resigned; but as it turned out, their
excuse for thwarting him was at the same time the strongest claim on his
loyalty. They made Crimean difficulties at once an excuse for postponing
reform and for urging him to postpone his resignation.
At first, however, as far as those who were not behind the scenes could
see, all went smoothly with the Coalition. The work of the session was
admirably carried out. Lord John entered the Cabinet as Foreign Secretary;
but as the duties of that office combined with the leadership of the House
of Commons were too much for one man, he resigned, remaining in the Cabinet
without office until 1854, when he became Colonial Secretary. The great
event of the session was Gladstone's famous first Budget.
_Lord John to Lady John Russell_
_April_ 19, 1853
Gladstone's speech was magnificent, and I think his plan will
do.... I think we shall carry this Budget, as Gladstone has put it
so clearly that hardly a Liberal can vote with Disraeli to put him
in our place. It rejoices me to be party to a large plan, and to
have to do with a man who seeks to benefit the country rather than
to carry a majority by concessions to fear.
_Lady John to Lord John Russell_
PEMBROKE LODGE, _April_ 20, 1853
I am delighted with Gladstone's Budget. I don't pretend to judge of
all its details, but such of its proposals as I understand are all
to my mind, and the spirit and temper of the whole speech
admirable; so bold, so benevolent, so mild, so uncompromising. I
read it aloud to Lizzy and the girls, and we were in the middle of
it when your letter came telling us how fine it had been.... Surely
you will carry it? I feel no fear, except of your allowing it to be
damaged in the carrying.
_Mrs. Gladstone to Lady John Russell_
_April_, 1853
MY DEAR LADY JOHN,--I thank you heartily for your very kind note.
You know well from your own experience how happy I must be now.
We have indeed great reason to be thankful: the approbation of such
men as your husband is no slight encouragement and no slight
happiness. I assure you we have felt this deeply. After great
anxiety one feels more as if in a happy dream than in real life and
you will not laugh at the relief to me of seeing him well after
such an effort and after such labour as it has been for weeks....
We have often thought of you in your illness and heard of your
well-doing with sincere pleasure.
Once more thanking you, believe me, dear Lady John,
Yours sincerely,
CATHERINE GLADSTONE
I must tell you with what comfort and interest I watched Lord
John's countenance during the speech.
On March 28, 1853, Lady John's daughter, Mary Agatha, was born at Pembroke
Lodge. Lady Minto was well enough to write a bright and happy letter of
congratulation on the birth of her granddaughter, but her health was
gradually failing, and on July 21st she died at Nervi, in Italy.
PEMBROKE LODGE, _August_ 3, 1853
The world is changed to me for ever since I last wrote. My dear,
dear Mama has left it, and I shall never again see that face so
long and deeply loved. Tuesday, July 26th, was the day we heard.
Thursday, July 21st, the day her angel spirit was summoned to that
happy home where tears are wiped from all eyes. I pray to think
more of her, glorious, happy and at rest, than of ourselves. But it
is hard, very, very hard to part. O Mama, Mama, I call and you do
not come. I dream of you, I wake, and you are not there.
_Lord John to Lady John Russell_
MINTO, _August_ 10, 1853
You will feel a melancholy pang at the date of the place from which
I write. It is indeed very sorrowful to see Lord Minto and so many
of his sons and daughters assembled to perform the last duties to
her who was the life and comfort of them all.... The place is
looking beautiful, and your mother's garden was never so lovely. It
is pleasant in all these sorrows and trials to see a family so
united in affection, and so totally without feelings or objects
that partake of selfishness or ill-will.
The old poet Rogers, who had been attached to Lady John since her earliest
days in London society, now wrote to her in her sorrow. His note is worth
preserving. He was past his ninetieth year when he wrote, and it reveals a
side of him which is lost sight of in the memoirs of the time, where he
usually appears as saying many neat things, but few kind ones. Mrs. Norton,
in a letter to Hayward, gives an authentic picture of him at this time. She
begins by saying that no man ever _seemed_ so important who did so
little, even said so little:
"His god was Harmony," she wrote; "and over his life Harmony
presided, sitting on a lukewarm cloud. He was _not_ the 'poet,
sage, and philosopher' people expected to find he was, but a man in
whom the tastes (rare fact!) preponderated over the passions; who
defrayed the expenses of his tastes as other men make outlay for
the gratification of their passions; all within the limit of
reason.
"... He was the very embodiment of quiet, from his voice to the
last harmonious little picture that hung in his hushed room, and a
curious figure he seemed--an elegant pale watch-tower, showing for
ever what a quiet port literature and the fine arts might offer, in
an age of 'progress,' when every one is tossing, struggling,
wrecking, and foundering on a sea of commercial speculation or
political adventure; when people fight over pictures, and if a man
does buy a picture, it is with the burning desire to prove it is a
Raphael to his yielding enemies, rather than to point it out with a
slow white finger to his breakfasting friends."
_Mr. Samuel Rogers to Lady John Russell_
_August_ 13, 1853
MY DEAR FRIEND,--May I break in upon you to say how much you have
been in my thoughts for the last fortnight? But I was unwilling to
interrupt you at such a moment when you must have been so much
engaged.
May He who has made us and alone knows what is best for us support
you under your great affliction. Again and again have I taken up my
poor pen, but in vain, and I have only to pray that God may bless
you and yours wherever you go.
Ever most affectionately yours,
SAMUEL ROGERS
In the autumn of 1853 Lord John took his family up to Roseneath, in
Scotland, which had been lent them by the Duke of Argyll. They had been
there some weeks, occasionally making short cruises in the _Seamew_,
which the Commission of Inland Revenue had placed at their disposal, when
threatening complications in the East compelled Lord John to return to
London. The peace of thirty-eight years was nearly at an end.
ROSENEATH, _September_ 2, 1853
My poor dear John set off to London, to his and my great
disappointment. The refusal of the Porte to agree to the Note
accepted by the Emperor makes the journey necessary.
Lady John soon followed him.
_Lady John Russell to Lady Elizabeth Romilly_
PEMBROKE LODGE, _October_ 21, 1853
MY DEAREST LIZZY,--... I have never ceased rejoicing at my sudden
flight from Roseneath, though its two causes, John's cold and the
Czar's misdeeds, are unpleasant enough--but his presence here is so
necessary, so terribly necessary, that neither he nor I could have
stayed on in peace at Roseneath.... What he has accomplished is a
wonder; and I hope that some day somehow everybody will know
everything, and wonder at his patience and firmness and
unselfishness, as I do.... I trust we may be very quiet here for
some time, and then one must gather courage for London and the
battle of life again. Our quiet here will not be without
interruption, for there will be early in November a week or so of
Cabinets, for which we shall go to town, and at the end of November
Parliament may be obliged to meet....
Your ever affectionate sister,
FANNY RUSSELL
_Lady John to Lord John Russell_
PEMBROKE LODGE, _December_ 9, 1853
Your letter just come, dearest ... I don't think I am tired by
colds, but indeed it is true that I think constantly and uneasily
of your political position, _never, never_, as to whether this
or that course will place you highest in the world's estimation. I
am sure you know all I care about is that you should do what is
most right in the sight of God.
It may be well to remind the reader at this point of the diplomatic
confusions and difficulties which led to the Crimean War. The Eastern
Question originally grew out of a quarrel between France and Russia
concerning the possession of certain holy places in Palestine; both the
Latin and the Greek Church wanted to control them. The Sultan had offered
to mediate, but neither party had been satisfied by his intervention. In
the beginning of 1853 it became known in England that the Czar was looking
forward to the collapse of Turkey, and that he had actually proposed to the
English Ambassador that we should take Crete and Greece, while he took the
European provinces of Turkey. In Russia, hostility to Turkey rose partly
from sympathy with the Greek Church, which was persecuted in Turkey, and
partly from the desire to possess an outlet into the Mediterranean. The
English Ministers naturally would have nothing to do with the Czar's
proposal to partition Turkey. Russia's attitude towards Turkey was
attributed to the aggressive motive alone. Nicholas then demanded from the
Sultan the right of protecting the Sultan's Christian subjects himself, and
when this was refused, he occupied Moldavia and Wallachia with his troops.
England's reply was to send a fleet up the Dardanelles.
A consultation of the four great Powers, England, France, Austria, and
Prussia, for the prevention of war, ended in the dispatch of the "Vienna
Note," which contained the stipulation that the Sultan should protect in
future all Christians of the Greek Church in his kingdom. The Czar accepted
the terms of the Note, but the Sultan, instigated by Sir Stratford Canning,
the British Ambassador at Constantinople, refused them. The Czar then
declared war, and though the Turks were successful on the Danube, he
succeeded in destroying the Turkish fleet at Sinope. This success produced
the greatest indignation in England and France, and in March, 1854, they
declared war upon Russia together.
Before these events Palmerston had resigned on the ground that the attitude
of the Government towards Russia was not sufficiently stiff and peremptory;
for, from the first, Lord Aberdeen had never contemplated the possibility
of war with Russia. But before the month was out Palmerston had resumed
office. It will be seen from the following letter, written by Lord John's
private secretary, Mr. Boileau, that disapproval of the Government's
negotiations with Russia was not the only motive attributed by Whigs to
Palmerston in resigning. Lord John had joined the Ministry on the condition
that he should bring forward his measure of reform; from the first most of
his colleagues were very lukewarm towards it, but Palmerston was
definitely, though covertly, antagonistic,
_Mr. John Boileau to Lady Melgund_
FOREIGN OFFICE, _December_ 19, 1853
You will be glad to know something about Pam's resignation and the
_on dits_ here--if, as I hope, you are safely arrived at
Minto.... His own paper, the _Morning Post_, will do him more
harm than good, I think. It will not allow that Reform has anything
to do with his resignation--swears he is an out-and-out
Reformer--and that his differing from the policy of the Cabinet on
the Eastern Question is the only reason. Now this, in my humble
judgment, I believe not to be the case. I feel certain, in fact I
feel sure, that he goes out solely on the question of Reform,
having been opposed to it _in toto_ from the first moment of
the discussion on it in the Cabinet, and though he went on with
them for a time, they came to something that he could not swallow.
As to the question of the East, if he does differ from the Cabinet
it is no more than Lord John or several others might say if they
went out to-morrow.... The _Times_ of to-day has a very severe
article against him. The _Daily News_ is very sensible and
implies great confidence in Lord John. The _Chronicle_ is calm
in its disapprobation of Pam--the _Morning Advertiser_, of all
papers! is the most in favour, and is crying Pam up for Prime
Minister already, and gives extracts from county papers to show how
popular he is. The _Morning Herald_ is silent on the subject.
I send you these flying remarks, as I dare say you will see nothing
at Minto except perhaps the _Times_, and any news in the
country goes a great way.... London is very cold and painfully dull
without 24 Chester Square, and you must write to me very often. You
see _I_ have begun very well....
Lord John, however, insisted on bringing forward his Bill in spite of
opposition from his colleagues and many of the Government's supporters. He
felt that the party was bound to keep its promise to the country, while his
colleagues urged that the House of Commons was so much occupied by the war
that they had no time to consider such a Bill. As the House of Commons was
not conducting the war itself the excuse was shallow. Lord John threatened
to resign unless he was allowed to introduce his measure, for he considered
the honour of the Ministry and his own honour at stake. From the following
letters it will be seen how hard he fought for this measure, and with what
poignant regret he found himself compelled at last to choose between
letting it drop and resignation. His resignation would have meant a serious
shock to a Ministry already in disgrace through their mismanagement of the
war; rather than embarrass them further at such a crisis he chose the
lesser evil of abandoning his Bill. But by yielding to the urgent appeals
of his colleagues and continuing in office, his position became from day to
day increasingly difficult. Finally, he resigned abruptly, for reasons
which have been interpreted unfavourably by almost every historian who has
written upon this period.
_Lady John Russell to Lady Mary Abercromby_
LONDON, _February_ 14, 1854
I remember almost crying in Minto days, when you were twelve,
because I thought it past the prime of life. What shall I do now
that you are striking forty-three? I believe you have long ago made
up your mind to the changing and fading and ending of all things
here below, joys as well as sorrows, childhood, youth and age, hope
and fear and doubt, and that you have learnt to look forward rather
than back; but to me this is often a struggle still; and when the
struggle ends the wrong way, how much there is to make my heart
sink within me! Chiefly, as you may guess, the deepening lines on
the face of the dearest husband that ever blessed a home, and the
comparison of him as he now is with him as he was when we married.
Yesterday was a great day to us; the Reform Bill was brought in. I
suppose I should be better pleased if there was more enthusiasm. I
should certainly have a better opinion of human nature, if those
who have cried out most loudly for Reform did not set their
cowardly faces against it now; but at the same time there is a
happy pride in seeing John's honest and patriotic perseverance in
what he is convinced is right, through evil report and good report,
in season and out of season.
_Lady John Russell to Lady Elizabeth Romilly_
_February_ 28, 1854
DEAREST LIZZY,--To get out of my difficulty as to which of my other
three correspondents to write to, I give my half-hour to you this
morning. I must begin by thanking you all with all my heart for
your most welcome congratulations on all that John has said and
done since Parliament met, and especially his great speech in
answer to Layard. It is indeed a happiness to hear such praise from
people whose praise is worth having; but I have now learned, if I
had not long ago, how worthless many of the congratulations are,
which I receive after a good speech which has set the Ministers
firmer in their seats. It may be right the week after to make one
which has a contrary effect, and then the congratulators become
revilers. I knew when I began to write that I should be
disagreeable, but had hoped not to be so as early as the second
page. However, having got into the complaining mood, I will not
hurry out of it; and I shall be surprised if you do not admit that
I have some reason for my complaints.
For the last ten days John has been urged and pressed and
threatened and coaxed and assailed by all the various arts of every
variety of politician to induce him to give up Reform! Mind,
_I_ say give up, where _they_ say put off, because I know
they mean give up; though cowards as they are in this as in
everything else, they _dare_ not say what they mean. Will you
believe that the language poured into my pained and wounded and
offended but very helpless ears, day after day, by official
friends, is to the effect that the country is apathetic on Reform,
and that therefore it should not be proceeded with; that Reform is
a measure calculated to produce excitement, conflict, disturbance
in the country, and therefore it should not be proceeded with; that
John having given a pledge was bound, "oh yes, certainly," to
redeem it, and that all the world will agree he _has_ most
nobly redeemed it, if he lets his Bill fall on the floor of the
House of Commons to-morrow, never to be picked up again; that if he
proceeds with it, he will be universally reproached for allowing
personal hostility to Lord Palmerston to influence him to the
injury of the country; that his character is so high that if he
gave it up, it would be utterly impossible for any creature to
raise a doubt of his sincerity in bringing it forward; that
dissolution or resignation are revolution and ruin and disgrace;
that the caballers are wrong, quite wrong, but that we must look at
the general question and the possible results (a hackneyed
expression which may sound wise but of which I too well know the
drift); that it may often be very honourable to abandon friends and
supporters with whom we agree, to conciliate the shabbies with whom
we differ; that, of course, they would be too happy to be out of
office, but people must not consult their own wishes; that I must
be aware that Lord John is supposed sometimes to be a little
obstinate, etc. In short, it all comes to this, that many M.P.'s
are afraid of losing their seats by a dissolution, and many others
whose boroughs are disfranchised hate the Reform Bill, and many
more are anti-Reformers by nature, and all these combine to stifle
it.... And to tell Lord John that really he has such a quantity of
spare character that it can bear a little damaging! I am ashamed
and sick of such things, and should think my country no longer
worth caring for, but for those brave men who have gone off to
fight for her with a spirit worthy of themselves, and but for those
lower classes in which Frederick [41] tells me to put my faith....
I must stop, not without fear that you may think me blind to the
very real evil and danger of dissolution or resignation at the
beginning of a great war. Indeed I am not--but those who see
nothing but these dangers are taking the very way to lead us into
them.... Lord Aberdeen is firm as a rock; it is due to him to say
so. How shall I prevent my boys growing up to be cowards and
selfish like the rest? You see what a humour I am in.... I never
_let out_ to anybody. When my friends give all this noble
advice I sit to all appearance like Patience on a monument, but not
feeling like her at all--keeping silence because there is not time
to begin at the first rudiments of morality, and there would be no
use in anything higher up. Good-bye, poor Lizzy, doomed to suffer
under my bad moods. God bless you all.
Yours ever, F.R.
[41] Colonel Romilly, husband of Lady Elizabeth Romilly, and son of
Sir Samuel Romilly.
_Lord Granville to Lady John Russell_
_February_ 28, 1854
I have just heard that Lord John has consented to put off Reform
till after Easter. It must have been a great personal sacrifice to
him, but I am delighted for his own sake and the public cause that
he has done it. There is no doubt but that nearly all who cry for
delay are at bottom enemies to Reform. Reform is not incompatible
with war, and it is not clear that a dissolution would be dangerous
during its continuance, but an enormous majority of the House of
Commons have persuaded themselves of the contrary.
In all probability the apathetic approved of the Reform Bill only
because it was out of the question for the present. Newcastle
agrees with me in thinking that a wall has been built which, at
present, could not have been knocked down by the few who really
desire Reform.
PEMBROKE LODGE, _April_ 8, 1854
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 God watch over him and
guide him.
LONDON, _April_ 11, 1854
The great day is over, and thank God 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 assailed 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 noble,
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 God 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 noble 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 assure 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 assembled 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 passed 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 pronounced 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 embarrassing. 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 assented 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 Constitution 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 passages:
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 assent 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.
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 circumstances 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 entitled 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 hitherto 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 pronounced 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 gratitude of the
great majority of the inhabitants of his district in regard to his
"efforts to cure the sad evils encompassing 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 pronounced 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