Castlereagh's appeared to him to be expedient for the public service, and stating his own perfect willingness to retire, if necessary. It appears to have been the wish of Mr. Canning that the Marquess of Wellesley should be placed at the head of the War Department, and this plan was generally approved of by the ministry. The whole Cabinet, with the exception of Lord Castlereagh, were aware of this correspondence, and they agreed with the Duke of Portland in urging Mr. Canning to withhold his resignation. At the same time they forbore to acquaint Lord Castlereagh that his removal had been resolved upon, notwithstanding that Mr. Canning had repeatedly requested that no concealment should be practised towards his colleague, and had been led to believe that he was fully informed of the whole facts. It seems, however, that the Duke of Portland timorously concealed the true state of the case from Lord Castlereagh, until concealment was no longer possible. Disappointed at the delays in effecting the change, which he understood had met with the concurrence of his brother ministers, Mr. Canning threatened himself to resign. This led to a crisis. Lord Castlereagh was put in possession of Mr. Canning's communi cations, from which he learnt that his own removal had been de termined upon by his colleagues, and agreed to by the king, and he naturally concluded that the whole affair was an intrigue on the part of Mr. Canning to eject him from office, in order to secure his own aggrandisement. Accordingly he sent Mr. Canning a challenge, which was accepted, and a duel was fought. Whereupon both parties retired from the Cabinet, a result which was speedily followed by the break up of the Portland administration.i In reviewing these transactions, we are forced to conclude that the Prime Minister was the most to blame, for disingenuously concealing from Lord Castlereagh the nature of Mr. Cauning's recommendations, in respect to the administration of the War Department, and the general agreement of the Cabinet therein. Had the Duke of Portland been candid and sincere, Lord Castle h Duels between Cabinet Ministers and other members of Parliament have been happily of very rare occurrence. In 1798, a hostile meeting took place between Mr. Pitt and Mr. Tierney, in consequence of words of heat in debate in the House of Commons (see Parl. Hist., vol. xxxiii. p. 1462), and in 1830 the Duke of Wellington challenged Lord Winchelsea, for words spoken in the House of Peers, during the debate on the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill. A duel ensued, happily without any serious results. This is deserving of mention, as being the last hostile encounter between statesmen before this barbarous practice went into desuetude. Alison's Hist. of Europe, 1815 to 1852, ch. 22, sec. 7. Edinb. Rev. vol. cx. p. 92. Smith's Parl. Rememb. 1862, p. 23. Alison, Life of Castlereagh, vol. i. p. 309-312. Stapleton, Canning and his Times, pp. 173-181. Edinb. Rev. vol. cviii. p. 320. reagh could never have charged Mr. Canning with intriguing against him, and at the same time conniving at the concealment of amatter so closely affecting his position in the ministry. of offices. In 1833, when Lord Grey was Prime Minister, and the seals of Amicable the Colonial Office were held by Lord Goderich, a great question exchange concerning negro emancipation in the West Indies was pending, and it was thought desirable that the office of Secretary for the Colonies should be held by a man possessing more weight and influence in the House of Commons, and who could enforce his views with greater eloquence, than Lord Goderich. Lord Stanley, then Secretary for Ireland, was considered, under these circumstances, as the most fitting man for the post. Accordingly Lord Grey informed Lord Goderich that it would be of great service to the Government if he would retire in favour of Lord Stanley, and undertake the less prominent office of Lord Privy Seal. The proposition was not very palatable to Lord Goderich, because it was liable to be misunderstood by the public; nevertheless, he would not allow his personal feelings to interfere with anything that was regarded as advantageous to the Government, so he agreed to the arrangement, and informed Lord Stanley of his consent, without entertaining any feelings of annoyance or anger against that nobleman. This transaction reflects the highest honour upon the patriotism of Lord Goderich, the more so as he had formerly filled the office of First Minister of the Crown.j out of the Another example of disagreement in the Cabinet, followed by Dissen the attempt of a minister to obtain the removal of a colleague, sions occurred in 1854, during Lord Aberdeen's administration. This arising case is peculiarly instructive, as while it undoubtedly gave rise to war in the strong personal feelings on both sides, it was conducted throughout Crimea. in an honourable manner, without concealment or intrigue, and is therefore a suitable precedent, for guidance, under similar circumstances. Lord John Russell, who then filled the post of President of the Council, partook of the wide-spread dissatisfaction at the conduct of the Crimean war, by the executive authorities at headquarters. He attributed the disasters which had occurred principally to the defective system of administration, and was of opinion that if an exchange of offices could be effected between the Secretaries for War and for the Home Departments, and the seals of the War Department be entrusted to Lord Palmerston, instead of to the Duke of Newcastle, it would ensure a greater degree of J Hans. Parl. Deb., vol. cxxxvi. pp. 1220, 1280. Haydn, Book of Dignities, p. 97. In 1820, the Prime Minister (Lord Liverpool) offered to Mr. Canning, the Foreign Secretary, to change his office for that of Home Secretary, for rea- vigour and efficiency: it being a commonly received opinion that Lord Palmerston, from his known personal character, was the fittest man who could be found for that office. But independently of his personal qualities, his position as a member of the House of Commons would, in the opinion of Lord John Russell, tend materially to strengthen his hands in the administration of this department. The objection entertained by Lord John Russell to the Duke of Newcastle was not that he was personally unfit for the charge of the War department, but that, under existing circumstances, it was necessary either that the Prime Minister himself should take the lead in the eager prosecution of the war, or else that the War Minister should be possessed of extraordinary authority, power, and energy. Lord Aberdeen (the Premier), he considered, was not a man whose disposition would lead him to act with the promptitude and energy required; it was therefore the more imperative that the War Secretary should be a person of pre-eminent energy and authority, in order that their combined action should lead to a successful issue.k After verbal communication on the subject with Lord Aberdeen, Lord John Russell addressed him a letter, setting forth his reasons for advocating the proposed change, and calling upon the Prime Minister to use his influence with his colleagues to induce them to acquiesce in such a distribution of offices as he would consider most advantageous to the crown and to the country. In another note, written on the following day, Lord John Russell exonerated the Duke of Newcastle from any blame in the conduct of the war, and attributed the unfortunate results to the lack of proper authority, and means of controlling subordinate departments. He also requested that his former communication should be shown to the duke, before any action was taken upon it. In reply, Lord Aberdeen stated that he had shown the letter to the Duke of Newcastle, and also to Mr. Sidney Herbert, the Secretary at War, whose position would be affected by the proposed plan, and had been strongly urged by both these gentlemen to adopt any arrangement with regard to their offices he might think conducive to the public service. Upon the merits of the plan itself Lord Aberdeen did not agree with Lord John Russell, considering that it would be viewed by the public, not as the transference of an important office into the hands of a member of the House of Commons, with a view to increase its efficiency, but as a mere substitution of one man for another. In justice to the duke, he did not think that his colleagues, without stronger and more imperative reasons, would wish to place him in that position. Neither did he think that Lord Palmerston, at his advanced age, would be willing or able to under Subsequent explanations, by Lord John Russell, in Hacs. Deb. vol. cxxxvi. p. 1275. take the laborious and complicated duties proposed to be entrusted to him. Some further correspondence passed between Lord John Russell and the Premier on the subject; but the result was that Lord Aberdeen adhered to his objection to the proposed scheme and declined to recommend it to the queen, expressing his conviction that any such alteration would be of doubtful advantage to the public, and unfair and unjust towards a colleague. He further declared his opinion that all changes of this kind, unless absolutely necessary, only tended to weaken a government. Whereupon Lord John Russell declared his intention of submitting the matter to the Cabinet. This correspondence was afterwards circulated amongst all the Cabinet ministers, but Lord John Russell did not adhere to his expressed intention of appealing to them on the question, and in point of fact it never was formally brought before the Council. The refusal of the Premier to concur in his views, led Lord John Russell at first to doubt whether he ought to continue in the ministry, but at the solicitation of Lord Palmerston and of his colleagues generally he was induced to remain. Parliament assembled in the following January and the state of the war became at once the subject of discussion. Mr. Roebuck gave notice of a motion in the House of Commons, for a committee to enquire into the conduct of the war, which was tantamount to a vote of censure upon the War Department. Feeling his inability to resist this motion, with the opinions he entertained, and had expressed to his colleagues on the subject, Lord John Russell resigned office, before the debate commenced. Referring to this proceeding in the course of the debate, both Lord Palmerston and Mr. Gladstone blamed his lordship for resigning without having first afforded his colleagues an opportunity, before the meeting of parliament, of deciding upon his proposal in favour of a change in the head of the War Department, as they had reason to believe that he had abandoned the views he had formerly entertained upon the subject. He should, they thought, have pressed the question at that time, and in the event of a decision against him, should then have retired from the Cabinet. In reply, Lord John Russell admitted that such a course would have been preferable, but declared that he had wished to continue in the Cabinet as long as possible; although he could no longer remain when it was proposed to institute an enquiry which his colleagues had determined to resist, but which he could not 1 Report of Sebastopol Committee, Commons' Papers, 1854-5, vol. ix. part 3, Evid. 21319-21347. Correspondence, in appendix to same vol. pp. 355-360. It appears, however, that the Duke of Newcastle's offer to VOL. II. ૨ retire from the post of War Minister was laid before his colleagues by Lord Aberdeen, and disapproved by all of them. Hans. Deb., vol. cxxxvi. p. 1245. Supremacy of the Prime Minister. consistently oppose.m The foregoing precedents serve also to confirm the doctrine previously explained in respect to the supremacy of the Prime Minister in the Cabinet. If any member of the Cabinet desires a rearrangement of ministerial offices, he must make known his views to the Prime Minister. If he wishes to resign, he should in the first instance communicate his intention to the Premier, in order that through him his intended resignation may be communicated to the sovereign. It is the First Minister alone who, of his own choice, can make changes in an administration, subject, of course, to the approbation of the sovereign. If he himself should vacate his office by death, or resignation, or be dismissed, the ministry is ipso facto dissolved. Individual ministers may retain their offices, if permitted by the sovereign, and may form part of a fresh combination with another head; but this would be a new ministry, and the colleagues of the incoming Premier must make a fresh agreement with him. The substantive power which is wielded by the Premier over his colleagues in office is necessarily very great. If he be a man of inferior ability, without very decided opinions, his authority and influence will be naturally impaired, and the influence of the strongest mind in the Cabinet will probably predominate. But if he be a man m Commons' Debates, January 26 n Lords' Debates, February 1, 1855. and 29, and February 5, 1855. |