and advised the queen to make choice of Lord Granville, in the room of Lord Palmerston, which appointment was made accordingly. In explaining this transaction to the House of Commons (in the debate upon the address at the opening of the next session) Lord John Russell bore the fullest testimony to the zeal and ability in office of his late colleague, acquitting him of any intentional disrespect either to the crown or the Cabinet, although in reliance on his own judgment, he had, in the opinion of Lord John Russell, forgotten or neglected what was due to both. For his own part, Lord Palmerston, while denying that he had been guilty of any dereliction of duty, upon this occasion, nevertheless freely admitted the right of the Prime Minister to advise the queen to remove any member of the administration at his own discretion, and without assigning any reason to the person so removed." After these explanations, the debate on the address was resumed. conveyed through a minister. Any comment upon this case would be superfluous as Royal it merely illustrates the constitutional doctrine already commands explained. But in reference to the mode in which the queen's prerogative was exercised, in the removal of the Foreign Secretary from office upon the advice of the Prime Minister, it is worthy of remark that when the royal commands are formally communicated to a minister of state, through an authorised channel, that is to say, by means of a responsible servant of the crown, it is unnecessary that any reason should be assigned for the same." Not only insubordination in office, but opposition to the measures of Government, or to the policy insisted upon by the Prime Minister, are sufficient grounds to warrant the dismissal of a member of the administration, whether he holds a seat in the Cabinet or not. nation in Upon the formation of a ministry which embraces men Insubordiof different shades of political opinion, it necessarily office. follows that there must be, to a greater or less extent, mutual concessions and compromises. But with the rare exception of certain questions, which by previous consent exix. Hans. Deb. February 3, 1852, vol. PP. 89-100. Ibid. p. 112. ▾ See ante, vol. i. p. 389. Report on Military Organisation, Commons' Papers, 1860, vol, vii. p. 7., Ministerial cooperation. Minority it is agreed shall be considered as 'open," it is an admitted principle that all the responsible ministers of the crown are bound to unite in furthering the measures of Government through Parliament, and in otherwise carrying out the policy which has been agreed upon by the Cabinet.* This policy is framed in the first instance by the Prime Minister in accordance with the principles of the party to which he belongs. It then forms the basis of negotiation between himself and those whom he may invite to assist him in carrying on the queen's Government. During the political existence of a ministry, questions must yield. will occasionally arise which it is deemed advisable to submit to the decision of the whole Cabinet, in which case the minority are bound to assist in giving effect to the conclusions arrived at by the majority, or else to retire from office. In no other way is it possible to have a vigorous administration, with a decided policy upon important public questions. It was under such circumstances that Lord Granville was compelled to retire from the Pelham administration, in 1744; and Mr. Pitt from the ministry, of which he was the actual though not the nominal chief in 1761. During the Grey administration, in June 1834, Lord Stanley, and other members of the Cabinet who were unable to agree with their colleagues on the question of appropriating the surplus revenues of the Anglo-Irish Church, retired from the ministry.a In March 1867, lords Carnarvon and Cranbourne, and General Peel-the Secretaries of State for the Colonies, for India, and for War, respectively-retired from the Cabinet, and from office, because of objections they entertained to the Reform Bill which had been agreed upon by a majority of their colleagues.b The exigencies of the public service, or the interests of Government, may sometimes require that there should be a readjustment of offices between different members For the theory and practice in regard to Open Questions,' see post, p. 327. Hans. Deb., vol. cxxvi. p. 883. For the origin and development of this principle, see ante, pp. 102-109. y See ante, p. 125. See ante, vol. i. p. 121. 1340. of minis of an administration, or the withdrawal of a particular Exchange minister, and the substitution of some more efficient or terial more desirable person in his place. Such expedients are offices. not infrequently resorted to as a means of strengthening a Cabinet, and of securing for it a larger measure of public support. They are usually effected by mutual consent and amicable agreement; although cases of a different description, and which savour more or less of intrigue, are not unprecedented. So far as regards the department of the Secretariat, an interchange of offices is easily arranged. In a constitutional point of view, there is but one Secretary of State, and though the office now consists of five distinct and separate branches, the functions of either secretary may, upon emergency, be discharged by another. The letters patent conferring the appointment are couched in general terms-as of 'One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State;' the assignment of special duties is a subsequent and arbitrary arrangement that may be altered at any time. No exchange can be made between other officers of the administration without a previous resignation of the place intended to be relinquished, and a formal appointment to the new office; which, in the case of a member of the House of Commons, until very recently vacated the seat. This was long felt to be a hardship to individuals, and a serious impediment to the reconstruction of a Cabinet. But although some change in the law in this respect was advocated by leading statesmen, without distinction of party, it was not until the passing of the new Reform Act, in 1867, that this restriction upon the readjustment of a ministry was removed, and authority given for the acceptance of another ministerial office by a member whose previous acceptance of a similar office had been endorsed with the approval of his constituents, without requiring a new election." Dissensions in the Cabinet. Thurlow. Granville. It cannot be expected that internal dissensions in a Cabinet, however much to be deprecated, should never occur. No cause of ministerial weakness has been more fruitful of disaster; but when men of activity and talent, each having political prepossessions in favour of particular views, or being actuated by personal motives of selfinterest, unite in the endeavour to form a ministry, they will sometimes clash. The supremacy of a master mind in the person of the Prime Minister is the best security for strength and unanimity in an administration. But even this has not always availed to preserve peace. Our political history furnishes many instances of governmental difficulties from this cause, which is not peculiar to any time, or to the predominance of any party. The undermentioned examples may suffice to illustrate the usual character of these difficulties, and to show the various methods that have been resorted to at different times to bring about the rearrangement of an existing Cabinet with a view to the extrusion therefrom of particular members. The disagreement between Lord Chancellor Thurlow and Mr. Pitt, which ended in the removal of the former from office, by command of the king, has been elsewhere noticede and needs no further mention. But as a case in point, it has a peculiar value in this connection. It is worthy of remark that Lord Thurlow was a great favourite of George III., and that nothing but the alternative of Mr. Pitt's own resignation, and the consequent break up of the ministry, could have induced the king to consent to his extrusion from the Cabinet. In 1744, during the Pelham administration, the principal members of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister himself, were dissatisfied with the foreign policy of Lord Granville, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. They accordingly drew up a remonstrance to the king (George II.) upon the subject, representing their united determination to resign, unless his majesty would dismiss Lord Granville from office. The king was very unwilling to accede to this demand, as Granville was his favourite minister, and the one whose policy more especially accorded with his own views. Nevertheless, the opponents of the Foreign Secretary and of his policy were too powerful to be disregarded, and at length the See post, p. 328. king was obliged to give way. He called upon Lord Granville to retire and transferred the seals to another member of the Cabinet, who enjoyed the confidence of his colleagues. The foregoing cases are chiefly noticeable on account of the personal attachment of the sovereign to the minister whose conduct had lost him the favour of his associates in office, and they indicate the supremacy of political considerations over personal predilections, on the part of the king. The cases which follow are of a different description. They do not involve any antagonism with the sovereign, but exclusively concern internal dissensions or disagreements between Cabinet ministers themselves. In 1766, during the Rockingham administration, the Earl of RockingNorthington was Lord Chancellor. The ministry were in a feeble ham. state, and from the tone of recent debates in parliament, it was evident that a political crisis was at hand. Their overthrow was actually brought about, however, by an intrigue on the part of Lord Northington. After a private conference with Mr. Pitt, the Lord Chancellor, unknown to his colleagues, waited upon the king, and informed him that the ministers could not go on, and that at all events he himself must resign the great seal, and would attend cabinet councils with Lord Rockingham no longer.' He concluded by advising his majesty to send for Mr. Pitt. The king very willingly adopted this advice, and the negotiation with the Great Commoner was successful. Northington was rewarded by his new allies with the office of President of the Council.g Another instance of ministerial differences is that of the memor- Canning able quarrel between Mr. Canning and Lord Castlereagh in 1809, and Casduring the administration of the Duke of Portland. At this time tlereagh. the seals of the War Department were in the hands of Lord Castlereagh, and those of the Foreign Office in charge of Mr. Canning. The latter was dissatisfied with the way in which the war with France was being carried on, under the superintendence of the Minister for War. Memorandums in opposition to each other's views were circulated by both ministers amongst their colleagues, and the king himself was appealed to on the subject. Being unable, by these means, to induce Lord Castlereagh to alter his policy, Mr. Canning at last wrote to the Prime Minister, expressing his conviction that'a change either in his own department or in Lord f Harris, Life of Hardwicke, vol. ii. pp. 77-81. Campbell, Lives of the Chancel lors, vol. v. pp 207-213. Mahon, Hist. |