Lord Palmerston's case. In coming to this decision, Lord John Russell abstained from consulting any of his colleagues, being satisfied that it was a proceeding 'for which, in order to avoid anything which might hereafter be tortured into the appearance of a cabal, he ought to assume the sole and entire responsibility.' However, two days afterwards, he met the cabinet, read to them the entire correspondence, and appealed to their judgment to approve or disapprove of his conduct; stating that in the event of their disapprobation, he should retire from office. The cabinet were unanimous in approving of the course taken by the premier, he therefore proceeded at once to Windsor, and advised the Queen to make choice of Lord Granville, in the room of Lord Palmerston, which appointment was made accordingly.i 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, fogotten 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. Since the occurrence of this case, the constitutional doctrine which it illustrates has been so well understood, that when the relative positions of Lords Russell and Palmerston were reversed, and the former held the seals of the Foreign Office under the premiership of the latter, from 1859 to 1865, Earl Russell afterwards testified that according to the uniform practice of the Foreign Office, the despatches which I wrote were submitted to him as prime minister; frequently he would write the whole despatch over again, and I was always ready to accept his draft.' By established practice, it is now i Hans. D. v. 119, pp. 89-100. Prince Consort, v. 2, pp. 411-429; v. 3, p. 111; Earl Russell's after thoughts on this case in his 'Recollections,' p. 258. * Hans. D. v. 206, p. 1833. customary for the draft of despatches to be agreed upon between the prime minister and the foreign secretary before they are submitted for the approval of the sovereign.' commands minister. In reference to the mode in which the Queen's pre- Royal rogative was exercised, in Lord Palmerston's case by conveyed his removal from office upon the advice of the prime through a 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 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. For it is always in the power of the crown, acting through a responsible minister, to direct the dismissal from office of a minister of state, holding office during pleasure, whether he be in the cabinet or not. And Parliament has no right to interfere, in any such case," unless it can be clearly shown that the prerogative had been exercised in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. Earl Fitz william. Thus, in 1795, the government deemed it expedient to recall Earl Case of Fitzwilliam from the lord-lieutenancy of Ireland, on account of his having favoured a policy in regard to Roman Catholic Emancipation, which was objectionable and embarrassing to the administration. This proceeding gave rise to much discussion in Parliament, and addresses were moved in both Houses, for copies of such correspondence as would show 'the motives and grounds of the recall ' of the noble earl. The motion was opposed by ministers as being unconstitutional and unprecedented. The power of nominating and dismissing his servants, without assigning any cause, . . . was 6 william. Earl Fitz- vested in the crown, and was an indisputable part of the constitution.' Admitting that no prerogative could bar the inquisitorial functions of the House of Commons,' it was necessary, in order to justify enquiry into the exercise of this prerogative, that a special case should be made out of positive danger, or public misconduct or delinquency.' Ministers are sworn to secrecy in respect to the advice they gave to the sovereign, and they are all responsible to Parliament for the administration of the government. But if either House of Parliament were to enquire into the causes of dismissing ministers, the next step must be enquiring whether or not their successors were well chosen, and advising as to their appointment.' Before ministers could be called to account, substantive ground must be laid for a charge against them.' In conformity with this doctrine, ministers refused to enter into particulars as to the reasons that occasioned the recall of Earl Fitzwilliam, explanations in regard to which would necessarily involve the discussion of cabinet secrets.' They were sustained in this determination by large majorities in both Houses of Parliament. r Vice- 6 On April 18, 1871, a motion was made in the House of Commons that a select committee be appointed to enquire into the circumstances which led to the dismissal of Vice-Admiral Sir Spencer Robinson from the post of third lord of the admiralty by the prime minister. Admitting that this alleged grievance was a fair subject of discussion, and promising that every paper relating to the case should be produced, ministers, nevertheless, urged the rejection of this motion. They declared that Sir S. Robinson had been superseded in his political appointment on account of differences of opinion between him and his colleagues, which made it impossible for them to continue to work together in harmony; and they submitted that it would be a precedent detrimental to the public service to appoint committees of enquiry into the reasons why the government are obliged to separate themselves from any of their colleagues. Ministers are exclusively responsible for the continuance in office of all civil servants, holding during pleasure, more especially for political officers, and could not without dishonour submit to the judgment of the House of Commons by continuing to remain in office after an adverse vote on such a question. The mover then expressed his willingness to withdraw his motion, but Mr. Gladstone insisted upon a division, which resulted in favour of ministers.s Upon the formation of a ministry which embraces P Mr. Pitt, the prime minister, in Parl. Hist. v. 31, p. 1550. Lord Grenville, Ib. p. 1518. Adolphus, Hist. of Eng. v. 6, p. 273. 1332. Hans. D. v. 205, pp. 1280 office. terial co operation. men of different shades of political opinion, it neces- Insubordisarily follows that there must be, to a greater or less nation in extent, mutual concessions and compromises. But with the rare exception of certain questions, which by previous consent it is agreed shall be considered as open,' Minisit 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. must During the political existence of a ministry, ques- Minority tions will frequently arise which it is deemed advisable yield. 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. W V 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. In 1812, the Marquis Wellesley resigned his office of secretary of state for foreign affairs, because the cabinet had differed with him on various important questions; and because his opinions on Spanish affairs had been always overruled by the premier, Mr. Perceval.3 Precedents. Re-adjustment of ministerial offices. Upon several occasions, during the period that Lord Palmerston was foreign secretary, his foreign policy was overruled and set aside by the cabinet, and it was only upon a question to which he attached extreme importance that he relieved the cabinet from the necessity of deciding between his views and those of his colleagues, by tendering his resignation. But on December 15, 1853, Palmerston withdrew from the Aberdeen ministry, because he could not support a large measure of parliamentary reform, which had been proposed by Lord Russell and accepted by the cabinet. But within ten days after, Lord Palmerston consented to withdraw his resignation, and he was reinstated in office.a In February 1845, Mr. Gladstone retired from Sir R. Peel's ministry, because the proposal to increase the Maynooth grant was contrary (not to his present ideas, for he supported the government measure, but) to the principles advocated in his book on church and state.b In January 1855, Lord John Russell seceded from the Aberdeen administration, because of differences in regard to the war with Russia. And in the ensuing month four ministers retired from the Palmerston ministry for a similar cause.c In January 1878, Lord Carnarvon withdrew from the Beaconsfield administration, and in March following, Lord Derby likewise seceded. Both noblemen retired because they could not coincide with their colleagues in measures deemed to be necessary in regard to affairs in the East.d 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. 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 of an administration, or the withdrawal of a particular minister, and the substitution of some more efficient or more desirable person in his place. Such arrangements |