LORD JOHN. RUSSELL AND PAUL GREY.
A correspondence has been published which passed between Lord John Russell and Lord Grey, in reference to a recent statement by Lord Grey and its apparent contradiction by Lord John Russell. The letters oc- cupy some space, but we may set forth their purport in an abridged form. On the 19th of April, speaking of 1849, Lord Grey said that "the original difficulty on this subject "—Reform—" arose from the fact that Lord John Russell, as head of the Cabinet, without any previous con- cert or communication with his colleagues, committed himself by ex- pressing the opinion tht.t the time was come when a change might be made in the measure of 1832." "I believe, when that announcement was made, it was not approved by any, or at least by more than one or two members of the Cabinet. For myself, I can say it had my most entire disapproval." On Thursday night last, Mr. Walpole quoted this assertion as a convenient weapon against Reform generally, and Lord John personally. Lord John is reported to have said, "It is not true." On Saturday, Lord Grey wrote to Lord John, referring to that denial, and asking for an explanation; at the same time quoting his own speech of April 19. By this quotation Lord John learned that the Earl had spoken of what passed in 1849, whereas he had understood Mr. Walpole to refer to 1852, when the Cabinet did stand pledged to bring in a Re- form Bill ; and hence the contradiction, which fell to the ground on the correction of the date.
Lord Grey is reminded by Lord John that he defended his colleague's conduct as Colonial Minister :—
"It was my business, and I might say my delight, to defend your honour arainst accusations which I thought unjust. I little supposed that, at that time, you were hoarding up accusations to be used against me eleven or twelve years afterwards in a place where I could not reply. However, I do not mean to make any statement of my own in contradiction to what you have said. I will content myself with quoting a speech of yours in the de- bate on the Address to the Crown in 1852, and bywhich I am willing to abide. After referring to other speeches, you are reported to have said :— " Now, my lords, let me point out the real circumstances of the case. Three years ago, if I remember rightly, various motions were made in the other House of Parliament, and obtained in that House a considerable degree of support, not only from those who voted for these measures, but in the expression of an opinion by gentlemen of great weight and influence, that experience had shown that there were defects in the Reform Act which required further legislation. My noble friend, feeling the force of these remarks and of public opinion, and seeing defects in the arrangement of the Reform Bill, which had not answered the expectations of the country, thought it right to express his opinion that a time might come when it would be proper to make some alteration in the existing laws relating to the fran- chise. My noble friend expressed that opinion in the strongest manner, and parti- cularly after the noble proofs that were given in 1898 by all classes of the popula- tion of loyal attachment to the Crown and to the existing institutions of the coun- try. My noble friend expressed that opinion so far back as 1899, and since that time has had to combat various proposals made in the other House of Parliament for alterations in the Reform Act. But it was my noble friend's opinion that if, in combating these proposals for hasty and inconsiderate alterations in the Reform Act he had not expressed himself in favour of future improvements, he would have shaken the foundations of that great settlement of our constitutional rights. My noble friend, therefore, said, and I think he was right, that he was not averse to well-considered amendments. But it was impossible that be could take this line in combating those propositions, which he looked upon as dangerous, without thereby contracting pledges which be considered it his duty to fulfil at a proper time. I ask, can there be a better time for redeeming them than the present 1 Is not the very apathy of which the noble Earl speaks a sufficient reason for calmly approaching the subject, and calmly considering what amendments can be introduced ? Would that apathy have existed if we had pronounced the Reform Bill to be a final mea- sure, and if he had said there were no blots in it which we would attempt to get rid of 1 If he had taken that line, would there not have been a very different disposi- tion on the part of the people of this country with regard to changes in the Reform Act far less temperate than those now about to be proposed I firmly believe there would ; and I say this because I think it is a justification of the line which my noble friend has taken, and in which his colleagues joined.'
"When you made this speech, you were eight years nearer to the time when I made those statements of which you now complain. You had not then imbibed those prejudices against me of which I have lately felt so pain- fully the effects." Lord Grey rejoins, regretting the manner in which Lord John hadi written to him.
"I do not think it necessary to defend myself (as I easily might) against all the unjust insinuations contained in your letter, but there are some ob- servations that I must make upon it. It is quite true that your speech on reform in 1861 was made after repeated discussions in the cabinet on the subject, but it is equally true that we entered upon those discussions under the disadvantage of your considering yourself pledged, by what you had
said in the House of Commons, without consulting us, to by forward as soon as you could some measure of reform ; and also that while you agreed only on temporary grounds to postpone making any such proposition for that session, I and some other members of the cabinet declared that we were not to be considered bound by the reasons you might assign in the House of Commons for your conduct, that we held ourselves quite free for the fu- ture, but were content to remain in the administration for the present, as there was no difference between us as to the course to be taken by the Go- vernment.
"I think upon reflection you will feel that your charging me with having, while a member of your cabinet, hoarded up accusations to be brought against you eleven or twelve years afterwards, is not justified by my having found it necessary in explanation of my own conduct to make a statement (which has not been and cannot be contradicted) as to the circum- stances under which I was led to acquiesce in your bringing forward a new measure of reform. If I had wanted to hoard up matters of charge against you, I should not now have been without any written memorandum of these proceedings. "You are quite welcome to taunt me with my speech in the House of Lords in 1852; but you know perfectly well that it is the duty of a Member of Government when its acts are attacked in Parliament, to state as well as he can the reasons by which the cabinet he belongs to has been guided, even though sometimes those reasons may not have been conclusive to his own mind. My object in that speech was to explain as I understood them your motives for the course you had taken, without implying my own concur- rence in opinions which it was notorious to yourself and to all our col- leagues that I was far from sharing. It appears from the report you have quoted that I was betrayed into wing some expressions going beyond this line, but undoubtedly it was not my intention to do so." The correspondence ends with two letters ; in one, Lord John says he shall publish the correspondence ; in the other, Lord Grey says he shall not then make a statement he intended to make in the House of Lords.
Previous page
