§ On the Motion for the adjournment of the House,
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLSir, I have been very anxious that there should be no necessity for any further statement on my part with respect to my resignation of the office which I lately had the high honour to hold, and I therefore refrained, in the debate on Monday night last, from replying in any way to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the 1273 Exchequer, although some of those statements were calculated to produce an effect injurious to myself. The only statement which I added at that time to those which I had formerly made was, that the Duke of Newcastle and my right hon, Friend the Secretary at War, at the time when the correspondence to which I had alluded took place, had expressed their desire that the offices which they held should be disposed of as should seem best for the service of the country. But, Sir, since then there has appeared a publication of what is stated to be a speech of the Duke of Newcastle, made elsewhere, which I cannot refrain from noticing, unless I were content to allow what I think grave errors to be established and settled in the public mind. I beg to say, in the outset, that 1 think that speech places this question rather too much as a personal dispute between the Duke of Newcastle and myself than on the broad grounds on which I endeavoured to place it. It appeared to me, Sir, at the end of last Session, that the composition of the Government was such that, not relying upon party support, it did not create any great attachment or enthusiasm towards it in the public mind, and frequent defeats, in consequence, attended the propositions which were made by it. Under ordinary circumstances, I should have thought those defeats a sufficient reason to allow me to state to the Earl of Aberdeen that it was not advisable that such a Government should continue, and to justify me in declining to conduct any longer the business of the Government in the House of Commons. But, Sir, there was a great question then pending—a great question, which, indeed, is still pending—namely, that of the prosecution of the war. Upon that subject the House of Commons gave the Government its confidence, and I stated then—and I thought I was justified in stating—that, so long as there was a prospect of the war being conducted in a vigorous and efficient manlier, in my opinion we should be justified in holding office in spite of the defeats which I have mentioned. There is, Sir, another consideration of a general nature which I wish to place before the House—namely, that it is of the utmost consequence into whose hands the conduct of a war is intrusted. My belief is that, if Lord North had conducted the seven years' war, we should not have had to boast of the conquest of Canada, and that, if Lord Chatham bad conducted the war of Ameri- 1274 can independence, we should not have had to deplore the capitulations of Saratoga amid of Yorktown, nor the humiliating spectacle of the triumphant fleet of an enemy riding in the Channel. Of so much consequence do I conceive it to be in whose hands the conduct of the war is placed. Now, if this be so, I am sure the House will not think it au unreasonable anxiety on my part, being the principal member of the Government to answer in this House for the conduct of the war, that, not relying on measures of internal improvement (upon which we had the undoubted confidence of the House), I should Watch with the greatest care the prosecution of that war. I come now, Sir, to the particular statements which have been attributed in the public journals to the Duke of Newcastle. In the first place, the Duke of Newcastle objects to the statement which I made, that there was a "strong wish" on his part to hold the office of Secretary of State for the War Department. I made that statement from the language which I have heard from various members of the Cabinet who had so stated it to me, and I must say I consider it was extremely natural that the Duke of Newcastle, having fitted out an expedition with considerable rapidity, should wish to see it carried, as he, and I believe all of us, expected it would be, to a triumphant issue, while he held the seals of the War Department. But, Sir, upon this subject I ant not left merely to the general belief which I was induced to hold, because, in one of the letters from which I read an extract the other night from the Earl of Aberdeen to myself, the noble Earl thus expresses himself—
But I must, observe that at the formation of the Government no such office as tile War Department was contemplated; and when, subsequently, the Colonial Office was divided, no objection whatever was made to the choice of the War Department by the Duke; nor, as far as I am aware, up to this moment, to his management of the office.Now, Sir, these words appear to me to be exceedingly clear and to have a very definite meaning. The noble Earl does not say that no objection was made to the choice of the Duke of Newcastle for the War Department, but that no objection was made to the choice of the War Department by the Duke of Newcastle. Well, Sir, it is perfectly true, as has been stated by the noble Duke, that, when it was proposed to divide the departments, he declared himself ready to take either or 1275 neither, as might be thought best for the public service; but my noble Friend at the head of the Government, who had great confidence in the noble Duke's abilities, was not likely to treat him with any want of generosity upon this point, and I believe that, according to the statement I have read, and according to all I have heard on the subject, the Earl of Aberdeen proposed that the Duke of Newcastle should have the choice of the two departments which were then about to be separated. That, Sir, is the first point with respect to which I have been stated to have been in error, and I think it will appear that what I have said is borne out by the letter of the Earl of Aberdeen to myself. The noble Duke says that I wished to have had the office of the War Department myself. If the Earl of Aberdeen had requested me to hold it, I certainly should have considered it my duty to accept it, but far from wishing for it, it was an office totally alien to any habits of business which I may have acquired, and I should have accepted it with very great reluctance. The next statement is, that there were errors imputed by me to the Duke of Newcastle. Now, Sir, what was the reason why I mentioned in my letter to the Earl of Aberdeen what I conceived to be errors with regard to the 97th Regiment and some drafts for other regiments then in the Crimea? It was in order to show that there was not a complete efficiency in the system adopted. My opinion was—and I stated it to another colleague of mine at the time—that, had the Duke of Newcastle felt any want of power, he should have applied immediately to the Prime Minister, and that defect could have been supplied. In short, my own impression was, not that the Duke of Newcastle was unfit for the War Department, but that, as I have stated, either the Prime Minister himself should constantly exert himself to hurry on and hasten preparations, or else that the War Minister should be a person of extraordinary authority, power, and energy. My belief is—and I will state it now—that, had the Prime Minister been a man whose persuasions and dispositions would lead him to hasten on with eagerness the preparations and arrangements for war, the Duke of Newcastle would have been found perfectly competent for the department which he held; and I think, also, that if the Earl of Aberdeen had had for a War Secretary a person of pre-eminent energy and authority, from the offices which he had before 1276 held, the noble Earl would have been a Prime Minister quite fitted to conduct our affairs to a successful issue. But I did not think, from what had happened, that the combination of the two did insure the efficiency of the public service. Now, Sir, it was in perfect conformity with what I have just stated that I addressed a private letter on the 8th of October to the Duke of Newcastle, in which I said, "You have done all you could do," meaning thereby that he had proposed the measures which he thought necessary, and that having been overruled by other departments it did not depend on him to do more. But, at the same time, I wrote to another colleague of mine, to whom I stated that it appeared to me very desirable that the Prime Minister should from time to time lend to the War Department all the authority which from time to time might be required.I come now, Sir, to a more important question—namely, to the statement that, on the 16th of December I had withdrawn my proposition altogether, and, in fact, had changed my opinion on the subject. I must, in the first place, point out that there were two different questions contained in my letter which I had carefully divided, treating one after the other, but stating that one was of very much greater importance than the other. One was as to the constitution of the War Department—whether the Secretary of State and the Secretary at War should both remain, whether there should be a consolidation of one office with the other, or whether there should be a Board of a nature to be afterwards settled. The other question related to the efficiency of the War Department, and the person in whose hands the department should be placed. The House will see that these two questions are totally distinct. Upon the first of these two questions I consulted a noble Friend of mine, who had discharged with respect, and to the satisfaction of the House, the office of Secretary at War—I mean Lord Panmure, and I think I could go to no better authority with respect to the constitution of the office. I had had some conversation with him on that subject last year, for I wished to know his opinion on what I considered to be a matter of no inconsiderable importance. My noble Friend told me that, in his opinion, there ought to be a Secretary at War, charged with the finances of the army, but subordinate to the Secretary of State; and, above he advised me not to bring about a rupture in 1277 the Government on this question. But with respect to the other question, I was under the firm impression—and it has been confirmed since by my noble Friend—that I never said a single word to him as to the office being held by the Duke of Newcastle or by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Viscount Palmerston). That was a question which I never touched upon at all to him, for, while I considered that the constitution of the department was a perfectly fit subject on which to ask the opinion of any person out of the Cabinet, I should have thought it highly improper for me to consult any such pêrson as to who should and who should not hold the office. What I stated on the 16th of December, then, referred entirely to my proposal that the two offices should be consolidated. I may have stated then—for I know I have stated it more than once before—and, therefore, I may have stated then to Lord Aberdeen, that, after he had said he could not honestly recommend to the Queen that the office of Secretary of State for the War Department should be taken out of the hands of the Duke of Newcastle and transferred to my noble Friend the Home Secretary, it was not my intention to bring that question before the Cabinet, since, if it were decided there adversely to Lord Aberdeen, the effect would be equivalent to driving him from the Government over which he presided. I, therefore, left that question entirely in abeyance, not changing my own opinion, but, at the same time, declining to incur the risk of breaking up the Government upon it. Now, Sir, I am ready to confess that it is very likely that I was in error in that determination; it is very likely that, having formed an opinion that it was for the welfare of the country that some change should take place, I ought to have submitted it to the judgment of the Cabinet, and, if the Cabinet had decided against me, I ought then and there to have resigned. I admit that it may be so. I own I was very averse to bringing the question to such a decision, and that I waited as long as possible, particularly with reference to the relations that I held towards Lord Aberdeen, and, having told him that I would accept office under him, and wished to maintain his administration, to avoid the necessity of going to that extent. As events went on, various questions arose with respect to the war, and on all of these I endeavoured to give my best as 1278 sistance to Lord Aberdeen, to the Duke of Newcastle, and to the Cabinet, with a view of improving the condition of our army and of providing for its future success. With respect to some of these questions—with respect, for instance, to a question raised during the short sitting in December by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) namely, that of holding some consultation and of making some provision for the next campaign, I was not satisfied. My hon. Friend pointed out the danger that might be incurred if the Russian army were increased on the Asiatic side, and he spoke of the necessity of providing some force to meet any invasion of Russia in that quarter. That was a most important subject, and it occupied my mind very much; but I could not find that I received from Lord Aberdeen that support which I had hoped for when the subject was under the consideration of the Cabinet. I still, however, Sir, continued a member of that Cabinet. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department said the other day, in anwer to the statement which I made, that I had not taken the right time and the right mode; that I ought to have brought before the Cabinet, before Parliament re-assembled, the question of how any motion here for inquiry was to be met—that I ought to have stated the deficiencies which I still thought existed in our military arrangements, either with regard to the office of War Secretary, or as to the General conduct of the war. I think, Sir, my noble Friend was entirely in the right upon that subject. I am quite willing to admit that when I perceived the error I had committed I regretted it. I have no hesitation in saying that it was an error on my part not to have fully considered the position in which I should be if a Motion for inquiry should be made after the opinion I had expressed, and the dissatisfaction which I felt. But, be that as it may, having committed that error, I felt I should be guilty of a still greater error—that I should be guilty of an error in morality—and there can be no sound politics without sound morality—if I stood up in this House and opposed inquiry, telling the House to be perfectly satisfied with the arrangements which were then going on, while at the same time, in my own mind, I was not satisfied, and did not agree that those arrangements were likely to be satisfactory. Well, Sir, it has been said the Government might have been defeated, that I 1279 might have stood by my colleagues, and that on the defeat of the Government we should have resigned our offices. I cannot say that that suggestion is satisfactory to my mind, for it supposes that I was to take a course, which in my conscience I could not take. But there is the other alternative to be considered. The Government might have been beaten, and I, with the rest of my colleagues—who, be it observed, held a different opinion from me, and who might very properly and honestly have met the Motion with a negative — might have resigned. The event, however, might have been different. A majority in this House might have declared in favour of the Government partly in consequence of my assurances that I was not dissatisfied with the conduct of the war. Sir, after all the obloquy I have sustained, I am very glad that I did not incur the obloquy of pursuing such a course. While mine has been called a hasty resignation I must say I have been struck by a statement, which was totally new to me, in what purports to be the speech of the Duke of Newcastle—namely, that some days before the meeting of Parliament he bad placed his resignation in the hands of the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury, and had stated that if no censure was passed upon him—if censure in any form was resisted successfully—he would retire from the office which he held, and would desire that it might be otherwise filled up. Now, Sir, I wish to say that I was totally ignorant that any such resignation had been offered, and, as my resignation was accepted, I must say I think my noble Friend's advice to the Queen immediately to accept it, without any further communication with me was somewhat inconsiderate and hasty. I certainly think it was due to me that the noble Earl should have informed me of the letter or communication he had received from the Duke of Newcastle, and we might then have considered together whether the Motion for inquiry could be resisted upon good and sufficient grounds. Be that, however, as it may, my resignation was laid before Her Majesty, and on the following evening I received a letter from the Earl of Aberdeen.
And now, Sir, you will, perhaps, permit me to observe that, having been subject to many slanderous attacks on account of the course which I then pursued—having been made a mark for obloquy for the last week on account of the hasty step which I took—I have only to say that 1280 if my past public life does not justify me from the charges of selfishness and of treachery, I shall seek no argument for the purposes of refuting them. It is not that I propose to live down such calumnies, but I do hope that I have anticipated them by the course which I have pursued during a somewhat extended public life. I may here, perhaps, be allowed to observe upon one phrase which is said to have been used by the noble Duke to whose speech I have more than once alluded, namely, that he had said to the Earl of Aberdeen, when my first letter was received, "Do not give Lord John Russell any pretext for leaving the Government. Accept my resignation." Now, I must say, considering that for nearly two years I had been a subordinate Member of the Earl of Aberdeen's Government—that I had consented, after holding the office of Prime Minister for five years and a half, to serve under the Earl of Aberdeen, and had done my best to promote the success of his Administration—that I had consented to the diminished importance of the great party to which I belonged, I must say, I think such a sneer on the part of the Duke of Newcastle was somewhat misplaced. I wonder it should not have occurred to him, "These objections to my continuing to hold this office must be sincere. It may even be possible that there is some deficiency in my management of this great department." But it does not seem to have occurred to him as within the range of possibility that he might not be absolutely faultless in his conduct of the office which he held, and that I should have had any other than some indirect motive in wishing for a change in the department which he administered. Sir, I referred the other day, in answer to a right hon. Gentleman, to what had taken place under a former Administration, in order to show that such an arrangement as I had suggested had not been quite without precedent. I have lately seen a letter from the person to whom I alluded—a man whom all who know him must esteem and respect—I mean the Earl of Ripon—in which he gives an account of that transaction which entirely concurs, I must say, with what I stated to this House. He says—
Lord Grey informed me that it was very desirable for his Government to have the advantage of Lord Derby's talents and services in a prominent situation in the Cabinet; and he proposed to me, in order to effect that object, to vacate the seals of the Colonial Department, and to accept the Privy Seal, which Lord Dur- 1281 ham intended to give up. I cannot pretend to say that the proposition was very palatable to me, because it was liable to be misunderstood by the public. But, when it was put to tie as a great advantage to Lord Grey's Government, I felt no disposition to allow my personal feelings to interfere with an arrangement which was so described, and finally acquiesced in its adoption; and I informed Lord Derby that I had done so, without any feeling of annoyance or anger against him.Now, Sir, this is a perfectly true and simple account of that transaction, and, as I think, it did the highest honour to the patriotism of the Earl of Ripon. I believe the noble Duke in question might have acted in the same way—that the Earl of Aberdeen might have proposed to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to accept the War Department in his place; and I think that if, in the month of November, that change had been made, the Ministry would have presented itself to this House with far greater prospects of obtaining their confidence and support than it could do in the way in which it continued to be constructed. I did not urge that motive upon the Earl of Aberdeen. I thought, when he said that good faith and justice prevented his agreeing to the arrangement, that no prospect of the success of his Administration was likely to lead a man of the highest honour and probity to adopt a course which he would not otherwise have pursued.And now, Sir, having finished this statement so far as relates to the Duke of Newcastle, I have to state to the House that Her Majesty was pleased, on Friday night last, to call upon me to undertake the formation of a Government. I felt that there were two reasons which made it incumbent upon me to obey Her Majesty's commands. The one was, that I had been partly instrumental, perhaps, in leading to that decision of the House of Commons en the previous Monday night which led to the resignation of the Government. It had also beep attributed to me that I was disposed, froth some cowardly feeling, to shrink from the vote of this House, and from the responsibility of an adviser of the Crown. I therefore felt it incumbent upon me, if I could form a Government with any prospect of success, not to shrink from a task the mo honourable, but, at the same time, the most arduous, in the present situation of public affairs, which any man could undertake. I found, however, that there were insuperable obstacles to my forming such a Government. I was not 1282 surprised at it, and I concurred in the objections which some of my Friends made to the formation of a Government. I therefore—within twenty-four hours after I had commenced the task—humbly submitted to Her Majesty that I had not succeeded in my attempts, and that I had done all that was in my power to accomplish Her Majesty's wishes, and that I must resign that honourable task into Her Majesty's hands. I think, whoever may be able to accomplish the task in which the Earl of Derby does not seem to have been more successful than was—namely, that of forming a Government which, in his opinion, and in the opinion of his colleagues, is fitted to cope with the difficulties of the present crisis—will receive the support of this House, and that this House will feel it is their duty at the present time to support the Executive Government in any measures they may think necessary.
I have only a word more to say, Sir, on the present occasion, and that refers to a report I have received that, at the time when I was absent from this House, a gallant General (Sir De Lacy Evans) remarked upon an omission which I had made in proposing a vote of thanks to the divisions of the army engaged in the late victories its the Crimea, and in alluding to the circumstances in which they had been placed. I am exceedingly sorry if I omitted to do justice to that Second Division which won its laurels upon the fields of Alma and of Inkerman, as well as in the gallant repulse of the enemy's attack on the 26th of October. I hope, however, the gallant General will remark that, in moving the Vote of Thanks, I said that I did not mean to give any account of those battles, because the details had been given in a clear and masterly manner by Lord Raglan himself, the Commander in Chief, and that, under the circumstances, I only wished to bring under the notice of the House the more striking achievements of our troops. No one could feel more anxious to do ready justice to that gallant Second Division than myself. Its fame is recorded in the despatches of Lord Raglan, and will be ever remembered in the annals of this country. I may say, further, that I omitted—an omission which I much regret—to mention the heroic efforts of Sir De Lacy Evans to attend himself at the battle of Inkerman, while he refrained from taking the command of the division from the officer next below him in rank who was then in command. That act showed his devotion to the good of the service, by his wish not to detract from 1283 any merit or fame which might be due to his second in command. I could wish that the Minister of the Crown, whoever he may be, whatever is the fate of that siege upon which the attention of the whole country is concentrated—whether or not success crowns our arms—I could wish that the Minister of the Crown may be able to propose a Vote to this House by which the House will acknowledge its sympathy with that gallant army which, for so many weeks, has been suffering every privation. My belief is that there is nothing in the heat of conflict which is so honourable to an army as their patient endurance, day after day and night after night, of every privation to which men can he subjected —maintaining, amid the want of food, of shelter, and of clothing, that spirit of honour which distinguishes the British soldier, and which will always be an inseparable quality of that soldier. I trust, therefore, Sir, that the time may come when thanks may be given, not only for their successes, if there be successes, but also some acknowledgment of the privations to which the army have been subjected, and of the heroism with which those privations have been endured. I could not refrain from saying these few words, as my personal conduct has been alluded to in late debates. I am sorry that I have been obliged to make a fresh statement to the House with regard to my conduct, but the House will feel that any imputation upon the honour of a public man must require explanation, and I trust that, whatever errors of judgment I may commit, I shall not, while I am in this House, be deprived of the character of a man of honour, endeavouring to serve his country.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, the closing remarks of my noble Friend do not, I think, call for any observation on my part. I will only venture to say that I am quite certain it required no assurance from him to convey to our minds the most distinct conviction that, if there has been any incompleteness in any portion of a statement in which he, as a civilian, was charged with describing military operations of great importance, the very last motive to which that omission would be ascribed would be indifference on his part to the exertions of the army. With respect, Sir, to the observations which preceded that portion of my noble Friend's remarks—namely, the explanation he has given of the part which he has been called upon to take in transactions connected with the formation of a Govern- 1284 ment, it must be obvious, I think, to the House that my noble Friend had no object in that course except to strengthen the hands of the Executive power at this important crisis, whoever may be the persons charged with the duties of Government. On the other hand, however, I believe that it is true that there is—as a general rule—inconvenience in these references, during the period when there is no responsible and efficient Government, to what may or may not happen, or to what has or has not happened, since the time when the Parliamentary existence of a former Government was terminated. I shall, therefore, think it no part of my duty to follow my noble Friend in his remarks upon that subject. I cannot wonder, Sir, when we consider the freedom, and even the licence, with which the conduct of all public men is discussed in this country, and particularly with regard to matters which may seem to involve personal feeling, or even personal honour, that my noble Friend should have thought it right—if he considered that the facts connected with his recent resignation did not stand fully and fairly before the public —to make a statement in addition to that which he had already submitted to this House. Nor would it become me to complain, even though it be true, that my noble Friend, in making that statement, has not altogether confined himself, in the strictest sense, to matters of fact, but has likewise intimated opinions, and has entered into what may be called partial discussions of great and important subjects with reference to the late Government and the proceedings of its Members which it would be quite impossible for us now to discuss in a satisfactory manner. If I feel it my duty to refer to certain observations made in the course of my noble Friend's speech, I assure him that I shall do so, confining myself, in the first place, most strictly to matters of fact, and, in the second place, with a conviction, which I think he shares, of the very great inconvenience of discussions of this nature, continued from period to period, between persons of great eminence who have recently stood in the confidential relation of colleagues, and who do not meet upon the floor of this or of the other House of Parliament, where the discussion might be brought to a speedy issue, but who must reply to one another without the advantages which personal encounter undoubtedly confers.
Sir, my noble Friend adverted, in the 1285 first instance, to what took place at the period of the assumption of office by my noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle. On that point I think it not necessary or just to carry the matter further than this—that the assumption, or rather the retention of that office, after it had been separated from his former functions, by the Duke of Newcastle was a retention which took effect with the full, unqualified, unhesitating sanction of the entire Cabinet. Therefore, under these circumstances, it would not be fair or just to lay the responsibility of that retention anywhere except upon the entire Cabinet of the Earl of Aberdeen. I have heard to-day from my noble Friend that if it had happened to be proposed to him that he should assume the functions of the War Department, he might have been willing to listen to that proposal. I believe that such a nomination would have given great satisfaction to the country, but at the same time I am sure my noble Friend will see that I do no more than justice to the late Secretary of State for the War Department when I say that he had no means, at that period, of knowing that such a willingness to take that office existed on the part of my noble Friend. My noble Friend has said that he did not think the combination of the Earl of Aberdeen, as First Minister of the Crown, with the Duke of Newcastle as Secretary of State for War, was a combination adequate to the exigency in which the country was placed. No doubt that is an opinion which my noble Friend has made known on a former occasion to this House; but it is at the same time to be recollected that the question is material at what date that opinion was made known to the Government. I do not think my noble Friend intends it to be understood that he had made known that opinion to the First Lord of the Treasury, or to the Secretary of State for War, or to the Cabinet at large, until the middle of the month of November. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Certainly not!] So that matter stands quite clear between us. Then, my noble Friend referred to a note which is quoted in the publication to which he has alluded, and in which he wrote to the Duke of Newcastle, "you have done all that you could," and my noble Friend added these words, as if they had terminated the sentence, "but you have been obstructed or overruled by other departments." I am aware my noble Friend did not purport to quote that sentence, but the words of his note are re- 1286 markable and emphatic, and I think it is obvious, from the words themselves, that they were general in their application. That, however, may be a matter of opinion; but, at any rate, it may be well that those words should be borne in remembrance. I think they are—"you have done all that could be done, and I am sanguine of success. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Hear, hear!] Well then, Sir, my noble Friend next came to what he represents as a matter of great importance with reference to the ease between himself and his colleagues—namely, the supposed change of opinion which, as I stated in this House, had been announced by my noble Friend on the 16th of December. My noble Friend states that there were two questions open, the one with regard to the arrangement of departments, the other with respect to the choice of persons to fill those departments. This latter question, my noble Friend has acquainted us, he never opened in conversation with Lord Panmure. If I understand my noble Friend aright, it appears that he had changed his opinion at that date with respect to the subject of the arrangement of departments, but not with reference to the alterations he would have proposed in the individuals filling those departments. Sir, of course it is not for me to say what was the state of my noble Friend's mind at that date. His own evidence, his own testimony upon such a subject, given either in this House or in any other place or form, must be absolutely conclusive. But what wish to point out is this, that my noble Friend late at the head of the Government and the colleagues of my noble Friend the late Lord President had not the means of ascertaining the nature of the distinction that was thus drawn. For, in the first place, there was a material connection between these two questions. I need not enter into the detail, but it is known to those who hear me, and will be perceived by those who refer to the arrangements of the Government, that the question of the reorganisation of departments was not an abstract question, but necessarily involved a change of men, and that, on the other hand, the change of men could hardly be separated from the rearrangement of the departments. However, it is not for me to argue with my noble Friend as to whether he is correct in supposing that these questions can be disjoined the one from the other. But, as he has described the state of his mind, so, in venturing to address the House on 1287 this subject the other night, I thought it but just that I should describe to them, from an authentic source, the state of mind of my noble Friend the late Prime Minister, and the impressions which he received from my noble Friend, he (Lord Aberdeen) being the medium of communication between my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) and the Cabinet.
Now, Sir, in that respect I am bound to say that I have nothing to change or to modify in what I then stated. It did not appear to my noble Friend lately at the head of the Government that there was any distinction between the views and intentions of the late Lord President of the Council, such as he has described to the House to-night. I have in my possession, from having received very early—I think within two or three days from the period of the occurrence—a communication from (Lord Aberdeen) on the subject—I have the means of speaking with the greatest confidence as to what my noble Friend Lord Aberdeen supposed and believed he had heard from the mouth of my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell); and it was to the effect which I have stated—namely, that Lord Aberdeen took an opportunity on the 16th of December, in conversation with my noble Friend of referring to the correspondence which had taken place between them, and to the notice that had been given by my noble Friend behind me, to be announced to his colleagues, of his intention to make his continuance in the Cabinet contingent upon the adoption of a certain arrangement, or, rather, of his intention, in the event of the non-adoption of a certain arrangement, to withdraw from the Government. Now, admitting that my noble Friend behind me, as he says, had not changed his intention—for I know nothing, and nothing was stated to me;— in fact, Lord Aberdeen could state nothing on the subject whether the abstract opinion of my noble Friend behind me had been changed or not—yet the statement made to me by Lord Aberdeen was, that the late President of the Council had changed his intention, and, so far as Lord Aberdeen's recollection of his impression at the time is concerned—and we have the written testimony of Lord Aberdeen also on the point—the late Prime Minister certainly was not cognisant of any distinction like that drawn by the noble Lord to-night between arrangements with regard to departments and arrangements with respect to the persons who should fill those depart- 1288 ments. And I think that my noble Friend behind me will feel that, with the impression which he conveyed to the mind of the late Prime Minister, and with the suppositions entertained by the other Members of the Cabinet, his conduct, up to the 23rd of January, was entirely in harmony. with his colleagues. On many occasions questions of all kinds—questions relating to matters civil, matters legislative, matters Parliamentary—had been discussed in the Cabinet, and on none of those days did there appear the slightest symptom of the retention on the part of my noble Friend behind me of his proposal or his wish that a change should take place in the person to whom the administration of the War Department was confided.
My noble Friend has referred to-night to a speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard), and to what, I think, he called the unsatisfactory position in which we stood with reference to the new campaign. It appears that my noble Friend was of opinion that certain provisions should be made and certain measures adopted in prepartion for the new campaign, none of which were taken. Well, Sir, my noble Friend, I am quite sure, will acquit me and the rest of his colleagues of any responsibility in that matter. It was impossible, in deference to any opinion of his, that we could have made such preparations or taken such measures, for the simple reason that we had no knowledge whatever that he required such preparations to be made. My noble Friend adverted again to a point which has been already mentioned—namely, the publication of a fact which, he says, has more or less the authority of the Duke of Newcastle. He says he finds that the Duke of Newcastle, a few days before the meeting of Parliament on the 23rd of January, placed his resignation in the hands of Lord Aberdeen, and stated to Lord Aberdeen that, if his conduct were to be defended by the Government, and if no vote of censure upon it was passed, he then intended to make that resignation absolute, and to retire from the office which he held. Now, I must confess that I think my noble Friend has not quite accurately gathered the nature of the statement made by the Duke of Newcastle. The words that I find imputed to the noble Duke, and which I believe are correct, are these:—
The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), in his statement with reference to the course which he 1289 had taken, said, until the notice was given by Mr. Roebuck he had not fully considered the course which he ought to take. My Lords, I had. I had maturely considered it; and, while I had made up my mind that my official career was practically brought to a close, I resolved at the same time that I would thee the ordeal of censure in your Lordships' House, and would submit the conduct of my administration to the judgment of the House of Commons. But, my lords, I felt that it was right that I should announce my determination; and a few days before the meeting of Parliament, on the 23rd of January, I told my noble Friend at the head of the Government—I did not tell my other colleagues, because I felt that it was not right that I should do so, and I think your Lordships will appreciate my feelings and motives in that course—that, whatever might be the result of the discussions in this House or in the House of Commons— whether the Government succeeded by a large majority in overcoming resistance and reproach, or whether they failed—I equally should tender my resignation as soon as that judgment should be given and the verdict of Parliament should be pronounced."— [See 3 Hansard, cxxxvi. 1250–51.]I think, Sir, that my noble Friend behind me, in his version of this affair, has fallen into two errors. In the first place, he unconsciously represented the case as if my noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle had made some bargain with his colleagues that his conduct should be defended in Parliament. [LORD J. RUSSELL: "No, no!"] That that was not the impression of the noble Lord I ant sure from this authentic expression of his views; but that was the impression which was likely to be conveyed. I do not impute it to my noble Friend as a statement; I speak of it only as a notion that might naturally grow out of his representation. ("No, no!") Well, I am perfectly satisfied, and will now pass on to another point which I wish to notice. My noble Friend the Member for the City of London said that the Duke of Newcastle placed his resignation in the hands of the Earl of Aberdeen. Why, Sir, if the Earl of Aberdeen had had the noble Duke's resignation placed in his hands, I think it would have been incurring a very heavy responsibility—a responsibility which, I should say, could hardly have been justifiably assumed—for the Earl of Aberdeen to have concealed the fact of that resignation from his colleagues. But the Duke of Newcastle, I beg leave to say, did no such thing as place his resignation in the hands of the Earl of Aberdeen. He gave the Earl of Aberdeen no option as to the course he should pursue. He intimated to the Earl of Aberdeen—whether the act was right or wrong does not affect the fact 1290 —the intention he had formed, and which he proposed to carry out at a future period. You may think the noble Duke would have done better to keep that intention to himself, or that it would have been wiser to make it more widely known. I will not enter into the discussion of that point. I think, however, that his motives were honourable, and that his judgment, on the whole, was sound, and that to have mentioned the intimation made to him by the noble Duke to his colleagues would have placed my noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) in a false position towards the Government, and the Government itself in a false position towards Parliament. I am quite certain of this, that nothing would have been so incompatible with the character and feelings of my noble Friend the Earl of Aberdeen as to make that intention known to the Cabinet and to his colleagues, and yet to keep it from the knowledge of my noble Friend the Member for London.There is only one other point to which I wish to allude. My noble Friend behind me referred to a letter which he said was from Lord Ripon, and he bestowed on Lord Ripon a eulogy which I, for one—and not only I, but, I think, the whole House—will admit to have been well deserved. I regard the conduct of Lord Ripon, in the year 1833, in respect to the arrangements which then took place, as being in thorough consistency with the high honour and many other public virtues of that nobleman. But, Sir, I demur to the contrast which my noble Friend has drawn between the conduct of Lord Ripon on that occasion and that of the Duke of Newcastle in the present instance. Lord Ripon, if I read his letter aright, did not say that the arrangement, the transfer then made, was one altogether agreeable to him—he did not say it was one that he had pressed—he did not say it was one that he had volunteered—I think, indeed, he stated, or at least gave it to be understood, that he had made no profession whatever of his readiness to have his office dealt with according to the convenience and the exigencies of the public service, but that, when the proposal was made to him by the proper and responsible individual, Lord Ripon, like a gentlemanly, upright, and honourable politician, gave way to the proposal, it being one that was perfectly straightforward and aboveboard from beginning to end. Well, did the Duke of Newcastle resist any proposition of that kind, made by the regular 1291 and responsible persons to make it? Did his course differ from that taken by Lord Ripon? Is he to be exposed to an invidious contrast with that nobleman, as if he had for one moment hesitated to accede to a proposition emanating from the head of the Government? No such thing. Why, Sir, my noble Friend (the Duke of Newcastle) went further than Lord Ripon did, for Lord Ripon, as he fairly tells the public, made no offer, but acceded to a proposal that had been made to him. The noble Duke, in a written form—in a letter addressed to the Earl of Aberdeen—requested the Prime Minister, on his own part and on the part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary at War, to make such disposition, of both their offices as might be best for the advantage of the Government and the benefit of the public service. I must say, therefore, that on this point I think my noble Friend behind me, in his anxiety to do full justice to Lord Ripon, has really done scant justice to the Duke of Newcastle. I have said, Sir, that I thought it obviously most desirable that this subject of controversy should be wound up; and, in confining myself only to matters of fact, I trust that I have kept my promise honourably. At any rate, I hope I have not wilfully wandered from. it. I trust that nothing has fallen from me which makes me a party, by connivance or otherwise, to the charges of treachery or cowardice that have been brought against my noble Friend (Lord John Russell). The man deserves contempt, who can make such charges; and from those who have been his colleagues my noble Friend knows that they have never received credence. I only rose, Sir, to supply those corrections which it appeared to me my noble Friend's narrative seemed to require, and, having accomplished that task, I do not think it fit for me further to trouble the House.
§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he must express his surprise that no announcement had been given of any progress having been made towards terminating that state of Ministerial interregnum which was affecting so seriously the interests of the country, and presenting such a melancholy spectacle of the defects of our much-vaunted representative system to the eyes of the world. While the explanations and counter-explanations and the intricacies of reasoning to which they had been listening were going on, he could not help fancying what the feelings of our army in the Crimea must be, suffering, as we all knew it 1292 was, every privation and hardship, upon learning that at home there was no Government absolutely existing; and what must be the feeling excited throughout Europe—what the exultation of all despotic Governments, and what the discouragement caused to those, alas! not too numerous newly-formed constitutional Governments to which the example of this country had long been held up for their admiration and imitation? He did trust that public men would look to the great crisis in which the country now stood, and endeavour, somehow or other, to compose and arrange their differences, so that we might, before long, have an efficient Government to carry on the war (which he might say for himself now constituted his only politics) with due vigour, and bring it to a speedy and successful issue.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ The House adjourned at Six o'clock.