Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

Stanley. Lord Stanley, however, declined to attempt the formation of an Administration until an effort had been made to combine the Whigs with the followers of Sir Robert Peel; and, by the Queen's desire, Lord Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, and Lord John met at the Palace with a view to ascertain whether such a combination were possible. Lord John thereupon drew up the following memorandum :

Saturday night, February 22, 1851.

Lord John Russell having been informed by the Queen that Lord Stanley declines to form a Ministry at present, and her Majesty having called on Lord John Russell to attempt the reconstruction of a Ministry of which he should be at the head, proposes to Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham the following points as the basis of an agreement.

A Cabinet to be constructed anew of not more than eleven members, with reference only to their fitness for the several offices and their willingness to adhere to the following conditions :

1. The present commercial policy to be inviolably maintained, and any commercial or financial measures to be in harmony with this policy.

2. The financial measures of the present year to be open to revision.

3. The Bill to prevent the Assumption of Ecclesiastical Titles, &c.,' to be persevered in so far as the preamble and the first clause, but the remaining clauses to be abandoned-much misapprehension having prevailed in Ireland with respect to those clauses.

4. Notice to be given of a Bill to extend the right of voting for members of Parliament in the counties, cities, and boroughs in England and Wales, such Bill to be introduced immediately after Easter.

5. A Commission of Inquiry to be instituted into corrupt practices at elections in the cities and boroughs of the United Kingdom.

The following was Lord Aberdeen's and Sir James. Graham's answer :—

Argyle House: February 24, 1851.

Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham, in obedience to the Queen's commands, have considered the points which Lord John Russell proposes as the basis of agreement in his attempt to reconstruct a Ministry, of which her Majesty has chosen Lord John Russell to be the head.

1. Adherence to the commercial policy, transmitted by the late Sir Robert Peel to Lord John Russell, presents no difficulty. It is desirable that all future commercial and financial measures should be framed in the spirit, and with the declared object, of that policy, so far as varying circumstances will allow.

2. There can be no objection on the part of Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham to a reconsideration of the financial measures lately submitted by Sir Charles Wood to the House of Commons.

3. A Bill has been introduced into the House of Commons, after a full statement of its contents, with the consent of a large majority of the House, the object of which is to prevent the assumption of ecclesiastical titles by Roman Catholic prelates in the United Kingdom. It is now proposed to strike out of this Bill all the clauses except the first, thereby reducing the efficacy of the measure. What remains of the Bill will be almost inoperative: but it must be remembered that the omission of the three last clauses will probably give rise to great disappointment and disapprobation on the part of those who represent the popular feeling in Great Britain so much excited in hostility to recent proceedings on the part of the Court of Rome. On the other hand, the small remnant of the Bill will still be resented as penal and offensive by the great body of her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects.

Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham have never admitted the policy of any such legislation; and, while they condemn the tone assumed by the Pope in his brief, and by Cardinal Wiseman in his pastoral letter, they see no sufficient grounds for legislative interference and they cannot be parties to an attempt from which they anticipate no good, and see reason for apprehending many serious evils.

4. It is not possible to acquiesce in giving notice of a Bill for the extension of the suffrage in England and Wales, not only without any previous careful consideration of its details, but without any knowledge of its contents. There may be no objection to the principles of such extension, if safeguards can be provided which will preserve the balance of the constitution, and which will strengthen and not impair the existing form of government. Delay in the introduction of such a measure, when its necesity has been admitted in Parliament by the First Minister of the Crown, must indeed be attended with inconvenience: but the possibility of framing a Bill on this most difficult and most important subject before Easter is questionable.

5. The proposed Commission of Inquiry into corrupt practices at elections in the cities and boroughs of the United Kingdom, if unobjectionable, would seem to afford a just ground for delay in the

introduction of the promised Bill for the extension of the franchise : but this commission may lead to changes in the system of representation which cannot be foreseen, and might produce an increased desire for secret voting.

Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham have thus communicated, in the first instance, their opinion on the conditions which Lord John Russell proposes as the basis of his new Government.

It is stated also by Lord John Russell that the number of the Cabinet is to be limited to eleven, and that the choice of the members within this narrow limit is to be made with reference to their fitness for the several offices. Lord John Russell, to whom the formation of the new Ministry has been confided by her Majesty, will necessarily be the sole adviser of the Queen in making this selection. It is not necessary for Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham to dwell on this portion of Lord John Russell's memorandum, or to reserve their right of independent judgment with respect to the colleagues with whom it may be intended to associate them; because on the preliminary points of public policy herein discussed there is not that agreement with Lord John Russell himself which would justify the acceptance of a proposal to join his Government on the conditions specified above.

Sir James Graham, speaking for himself alone, and judging by the measures of the late Government in connection with recent inquiries by committees of the House of Commons into the expenditure of the army, navy, and ordnance, into official salaries, and the fees and charges of the courts of law, would feel it his duty in Government to insist on a more rigid economy, and on a reduction of the public expenditure, such as Lord John Russell, according to the belief of Sir James Graham, is not prepared to sanction.

Lord John at once replied

Downing Street: February 24, 1851.

Lord John Russell wishes to explain some points in his former memorandum which do not appear to have been clearly understood by Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham.

On the third point Lord John Russell wishes to state that in his opinion the main object of the Bill with respect to the assumption of ecclesiastical titles was to assert the national independence from the pretensions of a foreign prince. If this object had been attained, he was willing to waive those parts of the Bill which had excited an alarm in Ireland of an intention to interfere with the spiritual acts of the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy, and thereby affect the

religious liberty which is so justly held dear by all classes of the Queen's subjects. Such an intention never existed.

On the fourth point Lord John Russell will only observe that of course all the details of a Bill for the extension of the suffrage must be considered before any notice is given of its introduction. But the time of such introduction is of less importance than a previous agreement that there is no positive bar to the consideration of such

a measure.

With regard to the suggestions relating to the number of the Cabinet, and that the selection was to be made solely with reference to the fitness of its members for their several offices, Lord John Russell only meant to preclude a nomination of four for one party and four for another, in reference to their previous agreement with different sections of the Cabinet. He considers such arrangements the cause of weakness and internal dissension. But Lord John Russell did not intend to submit a single name to her Majesty without the previous assent of Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham. But, as there is not that agreement on the preliminary points of public policy which would justify the acceptance of a proposal to join Lord John Russell in forming a Government, it is only necessary to explain that Lord John Russell meant the most entire and full confidence in Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham both in framing and carrying on the Government.

With respect to the latter points to which Sir James Graham has adverted, Lord John Russell has no means of judging what are the points upon which Sir James Graham would insist on a more rigid economy than Lord John Russell is prepared to sanction. The efficiency of the public service ought in his opinion to be always kept in view in any reductions that may be made, but no office should be maintained on any other grounds, which could be safely abolished or reduced.

Argyle House: February 25, 1851.

Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham have received the explanations which Lord John Russell was desirous of giving on certain points arising out of their recent correspondence. These explanations seem to remove any doubt or misunderstanding; but, as they do not materially affect the principal point of difference respecting the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and as the negotiation is now closed, it cannot be necessary to carry the discussion further.

Lord John Russell has intimated a wish that publicity should not be given to the written communications which have passed on this occasion. Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham readily acquiesce in this desire. They will not allow any copies to be taken of their

correspondence, nor will they make any public use of it, unless compelled by unforeseen circumstances, which they cannot anticipate, to recur to it in their own defence.

Sir James Graham added in a private note—

I can assure you, on the part of Lord Aberdeen and of myself that we are actuated by no unfriendly feeling, and that we earnestly desire not to add to your difficulties or to give you any unnecessary pain.

Lord John announced the failure of the negotiation to his old colleagues in the following note :

February 24, 1851.

Lord John Russell received this evening an answer from Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham on certain general terms which he had proposed as the basis of reconstructing the Government.

Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham object decidedly to any legislative measure on the subject of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.

This puts an end to the negotiation, and Lord John Russell has returned his commission into her Majesty's hands.

There has been no question between Lord Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, and himself with regard to persons.

Lord John Russell begs his colleagues to receive his cordial thanks for their able support during four trying years, and their disinterested kindness on this occasion.

The negotiation had failed; and, after the Queen had again applied to Lord Aberdeen and Lord Stanley, she sent, on the advice of the Duke of Wellington, for Lord John and asked him to resume the Government. He complied with her wish, and it is difficult to see how he could have done otherwise. Yet his resumption of office involved the consequences which had ensued from the return of the Whigs to power under Lord Melbourne in May 1839. A Government was maintained in office, not by its own strength, but by the weakness of its adversaries; and an Administration tolerated rather than supported cannot avoid incurring discredit. The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was modified; the Budget was recast; the Ministry on other occasions experienced several annoying defeats; and the session closed with an almost universal conviction that the Ministry had lost ground, that the existing system was worn out, and that

« EdellinenJatka »