APPENDIX
It has been seen (ante, vol. ii.) that Reeve intended quoting Lord Stanmore's letter on the formation of the Aberdeen Cabinet, in a future edition of the 'Greville Memoirs.' There seems, however, to have been no opportunity for doing so, and the letter has remained buried in the columns of the 'Times' of June 13, 1887, becoming each year more and more inaccessible. As relating to an interesting point raised by the 'Greville Memoirs,' and also as, to some extent, carrying out Reeve's intention, it is here reprinted, with Lord Stanmore's express permission.
To the Editor of the 'Times'
Sir,—It is only recently that the two new volumes of the 'Greville Memoirs' lately published have reached Ceylon. I fear that before this letter can arrive in England the interest excited by their appearance will have passed away, and that, consequently, comments upon their contents addressed to you may seem as much out of place as would a letter written for the purpose of correcting some error in any well-known collection of memoirs which have been long before the world. It is therefore not without some hesitation that I venture to request permission from you to point out the inaccuracy of a statement which appears near the commencement of the first of these two volumes, and casts an undeserved imputation upon the conduct, in 1852, of the chief members of the Peelite party.
Mr. Greville, under the date of December 28, 1852, writes thus:—
'Clarendon told me last night that the Peelites have behaved very ill, and have grasped at everything; and he mentioned some very flagrant cases, in which, after the distribution had been settled between Aberdeen and John Russell, Newcastle and Sidney Herbert—for they appear to have been the most active in the matter—persuaded Aberdeen to alter it, and bestow or offer offices intended for Whigs to Peelites, and in some instances to Derbyites who had been Peelites' (vol. i.).
In the next two pages lie comments with severity on the selfishness and shortsightedness of the Peelites in reference to this matter. Now, the reflection thus cast on the foresight and disinterestedness of the Peelite leaders is in no wise warranted by the facts. What really occurred at the formation of the Cabinet of December 1852 was, in truth, the exact reverse of what is stated in Mr. Greville's pages. It was not the Peelites, but Lord John Russell and the Whigs, who, after the list of the Cabinet and of the chief officers of the State had been agreed on between Lord Aberdeen and Lord John Russell, and had been submitted to and approved by the Queen, objected to the composition of the Cabinet as 'too Peelite,' and strove to change the arrangements made originally with Lord John Russell's entire acquiescence. I will not, however, occupy your space with remarks of my own; I will at once produce incontestable proof of what I have asserted. I have now before me a manuscript journal kept by Sir James Graham, and from it I quote the following extracts. In reading them it should be borne in mind that the proposed distribution of offices agreed on between Lord Aberdeen and Lord John Russell had been formally approved by the Queen on December 23rd.
December 24th.—'Lord John Russell most unexpectedly raised fresh difficulties this morning, on the ground that the Whigs are not represented in the new Cabinet sufficiently. He wished that Sir F. Baring should be placed at the Board of Trade to the exclusion of Cardwell; that Lord Clarendon should have the Duchy, with a seat in the Cabinet; and that Lord Granville should be President of the Council. He thus proposed at one coup an infusion of three additional Whigs, and talked of Lord Carlisle as the fittest person for the Lieutenancy of Ireland. It became necessary to make a stand and to bring the Whigs to their ultimatum. Lord Aberdeen consented to Lord Granville as President, and proposed that Lord Lansdowne should sit in the Cabinet, without an office. This proposition, which reduced the Whig addition, from three to two, saved the Board of Trade for Cardwell, but excluded both him and Canning from the Cabinet. Lord John did not regard it as satisfactory, and fought the point so long and so pertinaciously, that the new writs could not be moved to-day, and the House was adjourned till Monday. Towards evening, at the instance of Lord Lansdowne, Lord John Russell yielded an unwilling assent to Lord Aberdeen's last proposals…'
December 25th.—'Lord John Russell is very much annoyed by the disparaging tone of the articles in the "Times," which, while it supports Lord Aberdeen, attacks him [Russell] and the Whigs. He is still also dissatisfied in the exclusion of Lord Clarendon and of Sir George Grey from the Cabinet, and thinks that the Whig share of the spoil is insufficient. It is melancholy to see how little fitness for office is regarded on all sides, and how much the public employments are treated as booty to be divided among successful combatants. The Irish Government, also, is still a matter of contest. The Whigs are anxious to displace Blackburne and to replace him with Brady, their former Chancellor; they are jealous also of St. Germans and Young, as Lord-Lieutenant and Chief Secretary, and want to have Lord Carlisle substituted for the former. I discussed these matters at Argyll House with Lord John and Lord Aberdeen. If we three were left alone, we could easily adjust every difficulty; it is the intervention of interested parties on opposite sides which mars every settlement…'
December 27th.—'The Whigs returned to the charge, and claimed in a most menacing manner a larger share of the minor offices. Sir C. Wood and Mr. Hayter came to me in the first instance and tried to shake me individually in my opinion. I was stout and combated all their arguments, which assumed an angry tone. We came to no satisfactory conclusion in my house, and the discussion was adjourned to Lord John's. I found Lord John more amenable to reason; but the whole arrangement was on the point of being broken off. It was 1 o'clock. The House of Commons was to meet at 2 by special adjournment, and the writs were to be issued punctually at that hour. Sir C. Wood intimated that unless some further concessions were made the arrangement was at an end, and that the moving of the writs must be postponed. I said I should go down to the House, and make then and there a full statement of the case, and recall by telegraph my address to the electors of Carlisle, which declared my acceptance of office. This firmness, coupled with my rising to leave the room, brought the gentlemen to reason. I had a note in my pocket from Lord Aberdeen, which placed the Duchy of Lancaster at their disposal, and Strutt was in the House ready to receive it at the hands of Lord John. This offer was snatched immediately; Strutt was consulted and accepted on the spot, and Hayter was sent to the House of Commons, and he moved the writs of the Cabinet Ministers, of Strutt also, and of Baines…'
December 28th.—'The contest as to minor offices was renewed with equal pertinacity, but with less effect, after the moving of the principal writs. A battle was fought for the Great Seal of Ireland, which was ultimately yielded to Brady, the ex-Whig Chancellor. This concession was no sooner made than an attempt to force Reddington as the Under-Secretary for Ireland was commenced. He, being a Catholic, had consented to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, against his private judgement and in defiance of his coreligionists. His appointment would have been war with the Brigade, and it was necessary to refuse it peremptorily. The dissatisfaction of Lord Clarendon and of Lord John Russell was eagerly expressed, but was ultimately mitigated by the offer to Reddington of the Secretaryship of the Board of Control. The suggestion that Lord John might provide for him abroad was not so favourably entertained. I have never passed a week so unpleasantly. It was a battle for places from hostile camps, and the Whigs disregarded fitness for the public service altogether. They fought for their men as partisans, and all other considerations, as well as consequences, were disregarded. Lord Aberdeen's patience and justice are exemplary; he is firm and yet conciliatory, and has ended by making an arrangement which is, on the whole, impartial and quite as satisfactory as circumstances would permit.'
The evidence of Sir James Graham on points of fact will hardly be disputed, nor will it be denied that he, who took an active part in the construction of the Government and was in the most intimate confidence of Lord Aberdeen, was in a better position for knowing what passed than Mr. Greville, who was dependent on the information which he received from others. But if any confirmation be desired it will be found in the extracts which I add from the correspondence of Lord Aberdeen. The Queen, as I have before said, approved the lists submitted to her on December 23rd. The same evening, Lord John Russell wrote to Lord Aberdeen as follows:—
'I am told that the whole complexion of the Government will look too Peelite. G. Grey suggests, and I concur, that Clarendon should be President of the Council immediately, and when he leaves it someone else may be named—Harrowby or Granville. I am seriously afraid that the whole thing will break down from the weakness of the old Liberal party (I must not say Whig) in the Cabinet. To this must be added:—President of the Board of Trade, Postmaster, Chief Secretary for Ireland, all in Peelite hands. I send a note which Bessborough has given me, and which is said to convey the opinion of the Irish Liberal members. It is not very reasonable, but I think Blackburne should be changed for Moore, and St. Germans for Lord Carlisle. Palmerston consents to Bernal Osborne. You should write or see Cranworth. Forgive all this trouble.'
Lord Aberdeen replied:—
'I do not admit the justice of the criticism made on the composition of the Cabinet, if you fairly estimate the persons and the offices they fill. I do not object to Clarendon; but my fear is that he will not be able to do the business of the office in the House of Lords, and we are so weak there that I entertain very great apprehensions.'
Lord John rejoined:—
'What I suggest is (1) that, as I have frequently proposed, with your consent, Lord Granville should be Lord President; (2) that Sir F. Baring should be President of the Board of Trade, with a seat in the Cabinet; (3) that Clarendon should at once enter the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; (4) that Lord Stanley of Alderley should be Vice-President, not in the Cabinet. Let me add to what I have said that ten Whigs, members of former Cabinets, are omitted in this, while only two Peelites are omitted, and one entirely new is admitted—Argyll. Let me propose further that the minor posts be recast with less disproportion. Cardwell ought not to have office while Labouchere, Vernon Smith, and others are excluded.
'Pray let me have an answer before the writs are moved. I have sent for F.
Baring. If he will not join, G. Grey will.
'P.S.—About Ireland afterwards.'
On the receipt of this letter Lord Aberdeen wrote to the Queen that it put it entirely out of his power to go to Windsor on that day as had been intended, and that 'he regretted to say that the new propositions, which had been made by Lord John that morning, although the scheme submitted to the Queen had been approved of, were so extensive as very seriously to endanger the success of his [Lord Aberdeen's] undertaking.'
It appears to me to be thus shown, beyond dispute or question, that it was the Whigs and not the Peelites who, after the distribution of offices had been fully agreed on, and approved by the Queen, sought to modify the arrangements effected. Whether the Whigs had or had not cause for their discontent is another question, on which it is unnecessary now to enter. That such discontent was (considering their numerical strength) extremely natural, none can deny. That, on the other hand, it would have been impossible to exclude Sir James Graham, Mr. Gladstone, or the Duke of Newcastle from a Cabinet formed and presided over by Lord Aberdeen, and that the important share taken by Mr. Sidney Herbert in the overthrow of Lord Derby's Government rendered him also entitled to claim Cabinet office, most men will admit.
While anxious to correct a statement which appears to me injurious to the reputation of public men, some of whom are still living, I trust I may be permitted at the same time to record my strong sense of the general accuracy of Mr. Greville's information. Where his notes are inaccurate, their inaccuracy may, I believe, be more generally accounted for by his omission in those cases to insert in his diary (as in many other instances he has done) a subsequent correction of the erroneous reports which had in the first instance reached him.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,