Lord John Russell acknowledges the repeated instances of your Majesty"s goodness in permitting him to leave the Foreign Office, and subsequently to serve without office as Leader of the House of Commons. These changes, however, were not made without due consideration. To be Leader of the House of Commons and Foreign Secretary is beyond any man"s strength. To continue for a long time Leader without an office becomes absurd. Lord Aberdeen at first meant his own continuance in office to be short, which justified the arrangement.
[Pageheading: MR ROEBUCK"S MOTION]
_Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria._[7]
144 PICCADILLY, _26th January 1855._
Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs to state that Lord John Russell having made his statement, concluding with an announcement that he did not mean to vote on Mr Roebuck"s Motion, and Viscount Palmerston having made a few remarks on that statement, Mr Roebuck rose to make his Motion; but the paralytic affection under which he has for some time laboured soon overpowered him, and before he had proceeded far in his speech he became so unwell that he was obliged to finish abruptly, make his Motion, and sit down.
Mr Sidney Herbert, who was to reply to Mr Roebuck, rose therefore under great disadvantage, as he had to reply to a speech which had not been made; but he acquitted himself with great ability, and made an excellent statement in explanation and defence of the conduct of the Government. He was followed by Mr Henry Drummond,[8] Colonel North for the Motion, Mr Monckton Milnes against it; Lord Granby who, in supporting the Motion, praised and defended the Emperor of Russia; Mr Layard, who in a speech of much animation, gave very strong reasons to show the great impropriety of the Motion, and ended by saying he should vote for it; Sir George Grey, who made a spirited and excellent speech; Mr Walpole, who supported the Motion and endeavoured, but fruitlessly, to establish a similarity between the enquiry proposed by Mr Roebuck and the enquiry in a Committee of the whole House into the conduct of the Walcheren Expedition when the operation was over and the Army had returned to England. Mr Vernon Smith declared that his confidence in the Government had been confined to three Members--Lord Lansdowne, Lord John Russell, and Lord Palmerston--and that it was greatly diminished by the retirement of Lord John Russell. Colonel Sibthorp,[9] Sir John Fitzgerald, and Mr Knightley[10] followed, and Mr Disraeli having said that his side of the House required that the Debate should be adjourned, an adjournment to Monday was agreed to; but Viscount Palmerston, in consenting to the adjournment, expressed a strong hope that the Debate would not be protracted beyond that night.
Viscount Palmerston regrets to say that the general aspect of the House was not very encouraging.
[Footnote 7: His first letter to the Queen as Leader of the House of Commons.]
[Footnote 8: M.P. for West Surrey.]
[Footnote 9: Sibthorp, whose name is almost forgotten, earned some fame as an opponent of the Exhibition of 1851, and remained faithful to Protection, after Lord Derby and his party had dropped it. His beard, his eye-gla.s.s, and his clothes were a constant subject for the pencil of Leech.]
[Footnote 10: Mr (afterwards Sir) Reginald Knightley, M.P. for South Northamptonshire, 1852-1892. In the latter year he was created Lord Knightley of Fawsley.]
[Pageheading: THE DEBATE]
_The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria._
LONDON, _27th January 1855._
Lord Aberdeen presents his humble duty to your Majesty. It is probable that your Majesty may have heard from Lord Palmerston some account of the debate in the House of Commons last night; but perhaps your Majesty may not object to learn the impressions which Lord Aberdeen has received on the present state of affairs both in and out of the House.
There can be no doubt that Lord John Russell has injured his position by the course which he has pursued. His own friends having remained in the Cabinet, is his practical condemnation. He made a very elaborate and dexterous statement; but which, although very plausible, did not produce a good effect. It had been decided that he should be followed by Mr Gladstone, who was in full possession of the subject; but at the Cabinet yesterday held before the meeting of the House, it was decided that Lord Palmerston should follow Lord John, in order to prevent the appearance of a division in the Cabinet between the Whig and Peelite Members. As Lord Palmerston was to act as Leader of the House, the subst.i.tution of Mr Gladstone would have appeared strange. But the decision was unfortunate, for by all accounts the speech of Lord Palmerston was singularly unsuccessful.
In the debate which followed, the impression in the House was strongly against the War Department; and the indications which occasionally appeared of the possibility of Lord Palmerston filling that office were received with great cordiality. Sir George Grey made an excellent speech, and his censure must have been deeply felt by Lord John.
Lord Aberdeen has waited until the Cabinet had met to-day before he had the honour of writing to your Majesty, in order that he might learn the impressions and opinions of the Members, especially of those who are in the House of Commons. All agree that if the division had taken place last night, Mr Roebuck"s Motion would have been carried by a large majority. This still seems to be the prevailing opinion, but there is considerable difference. The Motion is so objectionable and so unconst.i.tutional that delay is likely to be favourable to those who oppose it. A little reflection must produce considerable effect. Lord Aberdeen sees that Mr Gladstone is preparing for a great effort, and he will do whatever can be effected by reason and eloquence.
It is said that Lord Derby shows some reluctance to accept the responsibility of overthrowing the Government; but the part taken last night by Mr Walpole, and the notice of a Motion in the House of Lords by Lord Lyndhurst, would appear to denote a different policy. The result of the Division on Monday will depend on the course adopted by his friends, _as a party_. It is said that Mr Disraeli has signified a difference of opinion from Mr Walpole.
[Pageheading: DEFEAT OF THE MINISTRY]
_Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria._
144 PICCADILLY, _30th January 1855._
(2 A.M.)
Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs to state that Mr Roebuck"s Motion has been carried by 305 to 148, being a majority of 157 against the Government, a great number of the Liberal party voting in the majority.
The debate was begun by Mr Stafford,[11] who gave a very interesting but painful account of the mismanagement which he had witnessed in the Hospitals at Scutari and Sebastopol, while he gave due praise to the conduct of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge toward the men under his command, and related the cheering effect produced by your Majesty"s kind letter, when read by him to the invalids in Hospital.
He was followed by Mr Bernal Osborne,[12] who found fault with all the military arrangements at home, and with the system under which Commissions in the Army are bought and sold, but who declared that he should vote against the Motion.
Mr Henley then supported the Motion, directing his attack chiefly against the management of the Transport Service.
Admiral Berkeley,[13] in reply, defended the conduct of the Admiralty.
Major Beresford supported the Motion, but defended Lord Raglan against the attacks of the newspapers. Mr. Rice, Member for Dover, opposed the Motion. Mr Miles[14] found fault with the Commissariat, and supported the Motion, saying that the proposed enquiry would apply a remedy to the evils acknowledged to exist in the Army in the Crimea; and Sir Francis Baring, after ably pointing out the inconveniences of the proposed Committee, said he should vote against it, as tending to prevent those evils from being remedied. Mr Rich criticised the composition of the Ministry, and the conduct of the war, and supported the Motion as a means of satisfying public opinion. Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer supported the Motion in a speech of considerable ability, and was replied to by Mr Gladstone in a masterly speech, which exhausted the subject, and would have convinced hearers who had not made up their minds beforehand.
He was followed by Mr Disraeli, who in the course of his speech made use of some expressions in regard to Lord John Russell, which drew from Lord John some short explanations as to the course which he had pursued. Viscount Palmerston then made some observations on the Motion, and, after a few words from Mr Muntz,[15] Mr Thomas Duncombe[16] asked Mr Roebuck whether, if he carried his Motion, he really meant to name and appoint the Committee and prosecute the enquiry, saying that he hoped and trusted that such was Mr Roebuck"s intention. Mr Roebuck declared that he fully meant to do so, and after a short speech from Mr Roebuck, who lost the thread of his argument in one part of what he said, the House proceeded to a division.
The Conservative Party abstained, by order from their Chiefs, from giving the cheer of triumph which usually issues from a majority after a vote upon an important occasion....
[Footnote 11: Augustus Stafford (formerly Stafford O"Brien), Secretary of the Admiralty in the Derby Ministry of 1852.]
[Footnote 12: Secretary of the Admiralty, who, contrary to modern practice, criticised on this occasion the action of his own colleagues.]
[Footnote 13: Maurice Frederick Fitzhardinge Berkeley, 1788-1867, M.P. for Gloucester 1831-1857.]
[Footnote 14: M.P. for Bristol.]
[Footnote 15: M.P. for Birmingham.]
[Footnote 16: M.P. for Finsbury.]
[Pageheading: LORD ABERDEEN RESIGNS]
[Pageheading: LORD DERBY SUMMONED]
_Memorandum by Queen Victoria._
WINDSOR CASTLE, _30th January 1855._
Lord Aberdeen arrived here at three. He came from the Cabinet, and tendered their unanimous resignation. Nothing could have been better, he said, than the feeling of the members towards each other. Had it not been for the incessant attempts of Lord John Russell to keep up Party differences, it must be confessed that the experiment of a coalition has succeeded admirably. We discussed future possibilities, and agreed that there remained nothing to be done but to offer the Government to Lord Derby, whose Party was numerically the strongest, and had carried the Motion. He supposed Lord Derby would be prepared for it, although he must have great difficulties, unless he took in men from other Parties, about which, however, nothing could be known at present.
Lord Aberdeen means to behave more generously to Lord Derby than he had done to him, and felt sure that his colleagues would feel a desire to support the Queen"s new Government.