Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Dissensions arising

out of the war in the

Crimea.

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.9

Another example of disagreement in the cabinet, followed by the attempt of a minister to obtain the removal of a colleague, occurred in 1854, during Lord Aberdeen's administration. This case is peculiarly instructive, as while it undoubtedly gave rise to strong personal feelings on both sides, it was conducted throughout 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 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 New castle 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

Hans. Parl. D. v. 136, 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 reasons personal to Mr. Canning, but the offer was declined. Betore the end of the year, Mr. Canning retired from the administration. (Stapleton, Canning and his Times, p. 204).

war secretary should be a person of pre-eminent energy and autho- Crimean rity, in order that their combined action should lead to a successful war. issue. 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 undertake 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 councils The

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Crimean

war.

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 re-assembled on January 23 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 consistently oppose. The retirement of Lord John Russell was speedily followed by the resignation of the whole ministry, owing to their defeat in the House of Commons upon Mr. Roebuck's motion. After the ex-premier had made his late ministerial explanations, in the House of Lords, he was followed by the Duke of Newcastle, who claimed the privilege of taking the unusual course of adding some explanations of his own, in defence of his character and conduct, after the statements made by Lord John Russell in the House of Commons. His grace ably vindicated himself from erroneous imputations, affecting his personal character, and satisfied the House that his unsuccessful administration of the war had arisen from defects in the system, and not from errors on his own part; " a conclusion which subsequent events fully corroborated.

-21347. Correspondence, in appendix
to same vol. pp. 355-360. It appears,
however, that the Duke of New-
castle's offer to retire from the post
of war minister was laid before his
colleagues by Lord Aberdeen, and
disapproved by all of them. Hans.

D. v. 136, p. 1245.

u

t Com. Deb. Jan. 26 and 29, and Feb. 5, 1855. Earl Russell, Recollections, pp. 258, 270. Ashley, Life of Palmerston, v. 2, p. 70. Martin, Prince Consort, v. 3, p. 199.

"See ante, vol. 1, p. 224.

macy of

minister.

The foregoing precedents serve also to confirm the Supredoctrine previously explained in respect to the supre- the prime macy 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 can advise changes in an administration, and recommend to the sovereign persons to fill vacancies therein." If he himself should vacate his office by death, or resignation, or dismissal, the ministry is ipso facto dissolved. Individual ministers retaining may retain their offices, if permitted by the sovereign, oder a and may form part of a fresh combination with another new head; but this would be a new ministry, and as colleagues of the incoming premier they 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 of powerful intellect, or of decided opinions, he will command the support of his fellow-ministers, and leave them no alternative but submission or resignation." A

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Minister

office

premier.

Ministerial resignations.

Dismissals.

prime minister will rarely interfere in the departmental arrangements of his colleagues, or in the distribution of the patronage which is placed in their hands; but he will require that all matters which in any degree affect the policy of the administration shall be submitted for his approval, and that if need be the whole strength of the government, including that which is afforded by the exercise of the patronage of the crown, should be employed in the furtherance of his political views, and for the purpose of enlarging the influence of the cabinet of which he is the head."

The resignation of office by a cabinet minister, although properly made known to the crown through the prime minister, as the official channel of communication between the sovereign and the cabinet, may be consummated at a personal interview with the sovereign -usually granted previous to the assembling of a privy council, at which his successor is formally appointedfor the purpose of delivering up into the royal hands the symbols of office, and in order to afford an opportunity for explanations on the part of the retiring minister. It is, however, a courtesy due to the head of the administration, to acquaint him previously of an intended resignation, so that he may take the necessary steps for filling up the vacant office without delay."

When the dismissal of a subordinate member of the administration has been determined upon, it is customary for a formal letter of dismissal to be addressed to the person in question by the prime minister, after he has taken the royal pleasure thereon. In the case of the re

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »