LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE CRIMEAN WAR.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIE,—The " Recollections " of Lord John Russell certainly do bring out proofs of vacillation of opinion on his part in connection with the year 1853. How can any one who reads the correspondence between him and Sir Arthur Gordon fail to see that Lord Aber- deen had no more strenuous supporter in the use of force, in respect to dealing with the Porte, than Lord John Russell, from the spring of 1853 down to the note of March 3, 1854, wherein Lord John Russell says that Lord Aberdeen would not have been permitted to advise acquiescence in writing to the Turk, by three of his colleagues,* at least, of which number he was one?
I do not agree with the leader in the Times that to revive the question of " Who caused that disastrous war ?" is now futile and void of interest. On the contrary, it is, to my think- ing, unquestionably the turning-point of that democratic, or rather anti-aristocratic movement, in which we have been swept along, ever since the nation was clearly made sensible of the incapacity of the higher classes to direct its affairs. This move- ment has recently been stemmed for a space, owing to the blun- dering of the Liberal party under Mr. Gladstone, the country feeling alarmed at the rough-shod legislation of that party, and accepting the Conservatives as a check upon the high-handed proceedings of the Liberals. But the Conservatives themselves recognise the modern necessity of enlisting, in the administration of national concerns, a certain proportion of the members of the middle-class.
Lord Aberdeen was incontestably the cause of the Crimean War, although conscientiously averse to its being undertaken. He had not the strength of mind necessary to resist the pressure put upon him by Lord Palmerston, Lord Clarendon, Lord John Russell, and others composing his Cabinet, and suffered himself
• Yet in September, 1833, Lord John Russell had reproached Lord Aberdeen for pressing the Porte too hard.
to "drift into war," helplessly, as it were. This is now generally admitted. According to what one learns from various sources, as years roll past, Lord Aberdeen, feeling his position to be a false one, would willingly have resigned his place as head of the Government. But it has been over and over again asked, " Why, then, did he not do so?"
The " Correspondence" now published by Sir Arthur Gordon seems to explain the reason. Lord Aberdeen was made aware of the probable return to the post of First Minister of the Crown of Lord John Russell, in case of his own retirement. Now, since he had reason to know that Lord John would be unacceptable to the other members of the Government, Lord Aberdeen remained.. This was a lamentable mistake on the part of that amiable noble- man, and one which there is ground for believing that his lord- ship afterwards regretted having fallen into.* In reference to this difficulty, hear Lord Aberdeen to the Duke of Bedford, in November, 1857 (published in the Times of March 1, 1875) :— "Now I am bound to say that I met with as much reluctance to entertain the project from some other members of the Cabinet, as from those who were more especially considered my own friends." The blame attaching to the authors of the fatal decision to- undertake the Crimean War must be shared by all the members, of the Government of 1853. Lord Aberdeen will, of course, bear the heavier portion of such blame, for having consented to a course from which his judgment recoiled, through indecision of character. But Lord John was among the foremost partisans of force in dealing with the Porte, and his name will doubtless share with. those of Lords Clarendon, Palmerston, the Duke of Newcastle, and others, whatever reprehension may be bestowed upon the party, both for the entering-upon and also for the conduct of the Crimean War, by succeeding generations. It will be a lesson for a long- while to come—if, indeed, " lessons " afforded by failures can ever avail us—showing how much mischief may result from over-rating our obligations towards other persons. Lord Aberdeen immolated himself to a sense of party fidelity. Must we, for all time, regard this virtue as the highest attribute of a statesman ?—I am,.
Previous page
