The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-10 00:00:00

CABINET SECRETS.

(From the Times.)
To-day we have a little tale for little people
The correspondence of Lord John Russell and
Earl Grey gives the comforting assurance that
Ministers are but men, that Cabinets are not
always happy or even well-regulated families, and
that eloquent declamation is sometimes treant to
hide serious misgiving. There is too much ti uth in
the metaphor which makes a stage of Rublic affairs.
Here is a peep behind the scenes; or, rather, the
actors, throwing off their robes, advance to the foot-
lights, and disburden themselves of at least a dozen
years' "hoarded " grudges. The other day Lord
Grey, in his remarks on Reform, vindicated, if not
his outward consistency, his settled convictions, by
showing that Lord John Russell had forced this
question prematurely upon Parliament without the
concurrence of his colleagues, and that he had him-
self never gone along with him. The two state.
ments, that it is all Lord John Russell's doing, and
that Lord Greg has always been otherwise than
hearty in the cause, are so manifest, so notorious,
that our readers would pass very lightly over the
passage which repeated this trite information. Our
reporters evidently, at the close of a long debate,
detected no novelty in that portion of Lord Grey's
remarks, and condensed them with freedom.
Though, happily, they have preserved the order of
events, they have not given the intervals as care-
fully as the delicate nature of the subject required.
Thinking it a thrice-told tale, and a revival of ideas
distressingly familiar, they slurred over a history
which the two actors concerned find it necessary to
contemplate with the minutest regard to chronology.
On Thursday night Mr. Walpole, taking men and
things on common report, and having a very correct
appreciation of these two noble lords, quoted the
passage in Lord Grey's speech as he found it, and
quoted it against Lord John Russell, to prove that
the demand for Parliamentary Reform had not
sprung from the people, but from Lord John him-
self, and was the result of his own political neces-
sities. The appeal to Lord Grey's speech was really
superfluous. It was only made for the rhetorical
purpose of introducing what schoolboys call " autho-
rity " into the theme. It was something to find a
witness to a notorious truth in one of Lord. John's
owneolleagues, himself the son of the great statesman
under whom Lprd J. Russell worked the Reform Bill
of 1831. The quotation was at least ornamental.
Mr. Walpole, however, seems to hive forgotten that
to evoke Lord Grey was to provoke Lord J. Rtissell,
who was only too glad of the opportunity of deny-
ing the statement with characteristic brevity and
simplicity of language. Lord Grey resents the
denial, quotes our report, states more fully what he
actually said, and asks what Lord J.Russe)l denies.
Lord John replies that his denial was on the sup-
position that Lord Grey had referred to his speech
on Mr. Locke King's motion in 1851, when there
had been repeated discussions in the Cabinet on the
subject of Reform, and when it could not be said
that he was taking his colleagues by surprise. As
Lord Grey had, in fact, referred to speeches three
or four years previous to that date, while Lord
John says he has searched in vain for the first in-

-
dilution of a second Reform Bill, he is happy to
withdraw his denial.

Here, in our humble opinion, the matter might
have rested. But "the beginning of strife is as
when one poureth out water," and the course of
Lord John Russell's researches led him not only
to his own forgotten speeches, but also to Lord
Grey's. Unfortunately for the cause of political
veracity and Christian charity, two capital hits pre-
sented-themselves, which Lord John Russell was not
the man to pass by. With unwary candour, Lord
Grey had referred to his own harassed position at
the Colonial-office as his reason for not deserting
his colleagues, even with the prospect of a Reform
Bill, on their return to power after Lord Derby's
failure. This recalled to Lord John's recollection
the pleasing circumstance that he had had a good
deal of work to do to defend Lord Grey's adminis-
tration of the colonies, as he does not omit to remind
him. Unfortunately, as our readers will agree with
us, the consciousness of unrequited service, and pos-
sibly of a friendship exceeding the limits of true
patriotism, carries Lord John Russell a step further.
He little thought that while he was labouring to
back up Lord Grey, and attend him as his squire in a
tour through fifty colonies, Lord Grey " was all the
time hoarding up accusations to be used against
him 11 or 12 years afterwards, in a place where he
could not reply." Of course, this was meant only
for a private and privileged communication, but it
was a very pungent one. We are bound to say,
not only in charity, but in truth, that it is a slip
for which even Lord John must be sorry, Lord
Grey may well be able to remember that he was
against any revival of the Reform agitation, and
annoyed at Lord John Russell's putting his foot
into it without a word to his colleagues, and yet be
guiltless of the ungrateful intentions ascribed to
him.

The chief feature of the correspondence, however,
is one which reflects but little credit on either of
these statesmen, and is calculated to throw a new
light on political oratory. It is quietly assumed
that several speeches, or rather series of speeches,
were more or less insincere, and merely made to
serve a turn against the inward convictions of the
statesmen themselves. Lord John Russell does not
tell Lord Grey with how much heart he defended
his colonial administration, but he certainly leaves.
it to be inferred that he found the task a hard one,
and one that might deserve some oblivion of his
own offences. More explicitly Lord John Russell
refers to the very Conservative character of his own
speeehei during the troublous period of 18481851,
and evidently feels that a sacrifice to the respecta-
bility- of political life is not a mere truckling to a
morbid sentiment... Lord Grey also makes his con-
fessions. lie played the part of a reformer ;he re-
presented Lord John Russell's measure of 1852 as

the necessary fulfilment of pledges forced upon his
colleagues by the success of independent reformers
and the temper of the times. On that occasion he
said not a word of Lord John Russell's temerity,
or his tendency to spontaneous legislation. It was
necessary, he says, to make the best 'of the case.
Lord John had done the same for him at the colo-
nies, and he could not but help Lord John through
a Reform Bill, little as he liked it. These are

revelations which contrast strangely with the
high-stilted - tone of Parliamentary eloquence ?
Are they to be entirely believed Perhaps a.middle
course_betWeeri the speeches in Parliament and these
angry palinodes will hit the truth-. nearest. B(
statesmen-maybe doing injustice to their publip,
sincerity, _while they.are exaggerating their pri
vane claims the one on 'die other. --
But One is tempted to ask how much ef thiS sort
of workis-goiz.g on now, and what sort of revela-
tions
shall We have 11 or 12 years hence. We can
easily imagine letters of that date • to " Dear Mr...
Gladstone" or "_Dear Lord John," reminding them
,„everally of avowed dislike, bat friendly support of
the commercial treaty, the budget,
.and the_ten
penny income tar, of the £G franchise, or of the re
peal of the paper duty. It is no secret that on all
these questions the Cabinet has been fiercely at
variance. Mr.GladstOne and Lord John will have
much to say for themselves, they will be able to
quote largely from: ..T.lansurd, and will be met by
the candid admission that it was all fudge, and
that, as these follies had been taken in hand, th-re -
was no choice bUt to go through with them. When
we give a general su[purt to a z7overnment, but
criticise this or that measure; or when we urge the
passing of a measure under existing circumstances,
.with the confession that we do not- like it, and
think it might hav' been_ avoided, the half the
world that eat, drin7 sleep, and abuse the Times,
set it down to venal illy- istency. Yet it seems
better than publiclr measures through
thick and thin,. and then reminding their authors
ten or twelve years after that sueh dirty work dii=
served a better reward. An admission of insince-
rity comes with neither grace nor use twelve years
after the act.

(From the Daily News.)
No wonder Lord John Russell has thought

necessary to publish his correspondence with Lord
Grey. No wonder if after the publication of that
correspondence Lord Grey thinks it unnecessary
to make any statement thereupon in the House of
Lords. Lord Grey, as it appears from the monu-
mental pages of Hansard, was at least a consent-
ing Reformer in 1852, when Lord Grey was also
a Minister of State. The s-tme noble earl is
something more than a silent anti-Reformer in
1860. Eight years may have made him a saklder
and a wiser man, but _Hansard survives all
changes of opinion, whether Ministers or of
malcontents, and to that mute perennial witness
Lord John Russell, with a painful singleness of
purpose, appeals. Some weeks ago Lord Grey was
explaining at length to his hereditary brethren the
reasons which had induced him to acquiesce in the
Reform Bill of 1852, and he then declared that
" the original difficulty" from which all reform
bills, present and to come, had sprung, wns the
gratuitous and unauthorised avowal_ by Lord John
Russell, as head of the Cabinet in 1849, that "the
time was come when a change might be made in
the measure of 1832." According to Lord Grey,
the fellow-minister of Lord John at the time, this
untoward expression of opinion fell from the lips
of the First Minister without the privity or con-
sent of his colleagues, and with Lord Grey's ex-
press disapproval. Lord Grey, as Colonial Minis-
ter, had, it is true, consented, with extreme reluct-
ance, to remain a member of an administration

thus pledged to a policy which he condemned.
But why ? Because the Cabinet was "on the eve of
falling.' We are honestly anxious to do justice to
this characteristic stroke of chivalry. If the days
of reform are over for our hereditary Whigs; let us
at all events have the satisfaction of showing that
the days of chivalry are not dead for them. No ;
though Lord John had, with that intrepidity which
glories in danger, nailed the colours of Reform to ,

the mast, Lord Grey, though only a prisoner on
parole, and owing nothing but a forced allegiance
toiler flag, determined to stick to the sinking ship,
and to desert the flag only in the event of living
to do so. He acquiescedin the introduCtion of the.
bill because he was .persuaded (we use his own
words) that it had not the remotest chance of pass-
ing. He took the pledge because he felt sure it
would never be kept.
Et voila pourquoi votre fille est nzuette. This is
why Earl Grey opened not his mouth against re-
form in 1852, but actually consented as a Minister
to the introduction of a bill by the head of the
Cabinet. Not that he was absolutely (lamb. This,
of course, the laws of chivalry would not have per-
mitted. On the contrary, as Lord John Russell
reminds him, Lord Grey mode, in his ministerial
capacity, a speech on the Address to the CI OWII, in
February, 1852, apologising very ably and c)nclu-
sively for the introduction of the Reform Bill, and
denionstrating.exhaustively that its introduction
hrd become a sort of moral necessity. In that ad-
mirable speech Lord Grey was not content with ex-
pressing freely and distinctly his own complete and
unreserved adhesion to the bill, but with prophetic
ardour ho cut the gr nod from under the feet of nny
renegade or reactionist in days to come who might
plead the "apathy" of the people as an excuse for
withholding a measure of political justice. Lord
Grey's words on this point were valuable when
spoken in 1852 ; in 1860 they were quite inestimable.
We never have understood the precise meaning of
the eulogy so often bestowed by the critics on great
dramatic artists of whose performance there is no-
thing new to say—" he surpassed himself." As-
suredly no other form of words so exactly expresses
the difference between the Lord Grey of 1852 and
the Lord Grey of 1860. The progress backwards,
if we may be allowed the phrase, is immense. Here
is the Lord Grey of eight years ago. At that date,
remember, he was a Minister of State ; he is speak-
ing of a Reform Bill introduced by the Head ofthe
Cainet " without any previous concert or commu-
nication with his colleagues," of a bill which had
his own entire disapproval. Mark how he de-
nounces Lord Russell's rashness, exposes a hasty
inconsiderate pledge, and deplores an ill-timed and
uncalled-for violation of the settlement of 1832 :

"Now, my lords, let me point out the real cir-
cumstances of the case. Three years ago, if I re-
member rightly, various motions were made in the
other House of Parliament, and obtained 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 in-
fluence, that experience had shown that there were
defects in the Reform Act which required further
legislation. My noble friend feelin g 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 franchise. My
noble friend expreised that opinion in the strongest
manner, and particularly after the noble proofs that
were given in 1848, by all classes of the population,
of loyal attachment to the Crown and to the exist-
ing institutions of the country. My noble friend
expressed that opinion as far back as 1849, and
since that time has had to combat various proposals
made in the other House of Parliament for altera-
tion 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 Re-
form Act he had not expressed himself in favour of
feture improvements, he would have shaken the
foundations of that great settlement of our consti-
tutional rights. My noble friend said, and Ithink
he was right, that he was not averse to well con-
sidered amendments. But it was impossible that
he could take this line in combating those proposi-
tions, which he looked upon as dangerous, without
thereby contracting pledges which he considered it
his duty to fulfil at a proper time: I ask, can there
be a better time for redeeming them than the pre-
sent ? Is not the very apathy of which the noble
earl speaks a sufficient reason for calmly approach-
ing the subject, and calmly considering what amend-
ments can be introduced ? Would that apathy
have existed if we had pronounced the Reform Bill
to be a final measure, and if he had said there were
no blots in it which we would attempt to get rid
of ? If he had taken that line, would there not have
been'a very different disposition 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 think it is a justification
of the line which my noble friend has taken, and
in which his colleagues joined." .
. Considering that this unanswerable justifica-
tion of a new Reform Bill is eight years old we
are bound to give Lord Grey the credit of being a
man (at least eight years) before his time, and this,
perhaps, even more than Lord John Russell';;
pledges, is the "original difficulty" under which—
as a posthumous anti-reformer—he rislw labours.
Nov what is Lord Grey's latest interpretation of
this nescit reverti of eight years ago ? As a confi-
dential hint to a brother Cabinet Minister it may
mean little or nothing; as a lifting of the veil
which shrouds the arcana of Cabinets from the
vulgar gaze it seems to us to suggest a curious
"You know doe-
.trine of mutual responsibility.-
per-
fectly well," writes the sometime Secretary of
State for the Colonies to his former chief, " 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, eyen though sometimes those

That Lord Grey, in his anti-reform spnch of the
19th ult., referred to Lord John Russell's opinio:ts
in 1819, not t;) his speech in 1851, in terms imply-
ing- that the author of the present B.Jorai Bill It:td.
p!edged without consulting his colleagues in 18.52,
is a small matter after Lord Grey's distinct admis-
sion that Lord John Russell's speech on Reform in
1851 " was made after repeated discussions. in tl:e
Cabinet on the subject." But this illustration of
Cabinet Morality would be incomplete without
Lord Grey's frank admission, that he and some
other members of the Cabinet " held" themselves
"quite free for the future, but were content to re•
main in the.administration for the present, as there
-was no difference between us as to the course to be
taken by the • Government." "The course," accord-
ing to Lord Grey and "some other members," was
to endorse the bill on condition that it should be
dishonoured when due.

BENSON'S WATCHES.
" Perfection of mechanism."—Morning Post.
Gold
Silver 2to 50 guineas.
Send z Pt:imps for Benson's Illustrated Pamphlet, descr'p-
tive of every construction of watch now made, with their
prices '
Watches sent to all parts of the kingdom free by post, or to
India and the Colonies for ss. extra.
33 and 34, Ludgate-hill, London, E.C. Established 1749.