are not infrequently resorted to in order to strengthen a cabinet, and to secure for it a larger measure of public support. They are generally effected by mutual consent and amicable agreement; although cases of a different description, and which savour more or less of intrigue, are not unprecedented. No doubt a redistribution of cabinet offices will often occasion temporary inconvenience, by the removal of a minister from a department for the charge of which he has evinced a special aptitude, but this is usually counterbalanced by the enlarged experience acquired by men who preside in turn over several leading public departments, and thereby become the more efficient as cabinet ministers to superintend the whole affairs of the country. g So far as regards the department of the secretariat, an interchange of offices is easily managed. 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 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, Mr. Gladstone, Hans. D. v. 204, p. 1996. Dissensions in the cabinet. without distinction of party, it was not until the passing of the new Reform Act, in 1867, that this restriction upon the re-adjustment 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. 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 self-interest, 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 second Lord Holland, who had lived all his life in intimate acquaintance with cabinet ministers, told Sir H. Bulwer that he had never known a cabinet of which the members did not dispute more amongst themselves during their councils than they disputed with their antagonists in the House of Commons.' 'A peep behind the scenes would pretty generally demonstrate that a cabinet is more often held together by the same interests than by the same opinions.'j 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. Bulwer's Life of Palmerston, v. 1, p. 250. 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 noticed 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 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.k 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. Thurlow. Granville. ham. In 1766, during the Rockingham administration, the Earl of Northington was lord chancellor. The ministry were in a feeble Rockingstate, 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 k Harris, Life of Hardwicke, v. 2, pp. 77-81. Canning and Castlereagh. 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.m Another instance of ministerial differences is that of the memorable quarrel between Mr. Canning and Lord Castlereagh in 1809, during the administration of the Duke of Portland. At this time 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 Castlereagh's appeared to him to be expedient for the publie 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 communications, from which he learnt that his own removal had been determined 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 m Campbell, Lives of the Chanc. v. 5, pp. 207-213. Mahon, Hist. of n 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.° 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. Canning'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 Castlereagh could never have charged Mr. Canning with intriguing against him, and at the same time conniving at the concealment of a matter so closely affecting his position in the ministry. Later on in the same year (1809) serious differences occurred in the cabinet, arising out of the proposed resignation of the Duke of Portland, and Mr. Canning's endeavour to secure his own succession to the premiership, instead of Mr. Perceval. Canning's efforts failed, whereupon he refused to form part of Mr. Perceval's new administration.P of offices. In 1833, when Lord Grey was prime minister, and the seals of Am'cable 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 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. v. 33, p. 1462), and in 1830 the Duke of Wellington challenged Lord Winchelsea, for publishing a letter, attributing motives highly offensive to the duke, in reference to certain public conduct of his about a year previous. A duel en |