1827.

of individual strength-except the return of Mr. Canning to office, in 1816, and his promotion to the leadership of the House of Commons, in September 1822; the entrance of the Duke of Wellington into the ministry, as Master-General of the Ordnance, in 1819; of Mr. Peel, as Home Secretary, in 1822; and of Mr. Huskisson, as President of the Board of Trade, in 1823. At length, on February 17, 1827, Lord Liverpool was seized with an attack of paralysis, which, though not fatal at the time, was of such severity as to render his retention of office impossible. Six weeks afterwards, as soon as returning consciousness permitted, he tendered his resignation to the king; and in his state of health the sovereign had no alternative but to accept it. During the long interval which elapsed between the seizure of Lord Liverpool and his resignation of office, the administration was left virtually without a head. Nor did his final retirement solve the difficulty. The men who had been content to act in subordination to Lord Liverpool, out of respect to his personal worth and integrity of purpose, were by no means willing to yield the preeminence to one of their own number. They were not disposed themselves to retire from office; but they required a chief, in whose political views they could coincide, and, above all, one who should be able to form a cabinet that would regard the Roman Catholic claims as an open question, upon a similar system of compromise to that which had been agreed upon by Lord Liverpool's administration. Both Mr. Peel and Mr. Canning were well qualified to fill the vacant post; but the former was the recognised leader of the anti-Catholic party, and the latter had been equally conspicuous for his advocacy of emancipation. Neither of these statesmen, morcover, could be expected to serve under the

Yonge, Life of Ld. Liverpool, v. 2, p. 253.

He died on Dec. 4, 1828, aged 58 years.

other. Such were the difficulties wherein his Majesty 1827. was involved. The king's first attempt was to consult Mr. Canning (on March 27), in his capacity of a privy councillor, upon the reconstruction of the ministry. Mr. Canning recommended that a cabinet should be formed whose members would unite in opposing Roman Catholic emancipation, a policy which was in conformity with the acknowledged sentiments of his Majesty, and with the existing state of public opinion on the question. In giving this disinterested advice, Mr. Canning expressed his own readiness to retire from office rather than be an obstacle to such an arrangement. But this offer was rejected by the king, who desired to retain Mr. Canning in his service, and to place a peer of anti-Catholic opinions at the head of the ministry. Mr. Canning, however, objected to the superinduction of an antiCatholic first minister over his head;' he was, in fact, desirous of placing Mr. Robinson, whose views on the Catholic question agreed with his own, at the head of the Treasury, and of retaining his place as Foreign Secretary, with the understanding that he should be the virtual premier. But this scheme proved to be impracticable. Other plans were then devised, but it was found impossible to agree upon anything which would allow the prominent members of the Liverpool cabinet to continue to act in concert. The latter part of February, and the whole of March, were consumed in these fruitless negotiations. All this time the old ministry nominally continued in office, although it was understood that they merely held their places until their successors should be appointed. The Liverpool administration was accordingly regarded as virtually defunct."

During this ministerial interregnum, on March 30 it

Ann. Reg. 1827, pp. 90-96; of Canning's Administration, first Lewis, Adminis. p. 435. See R. published by Rev. H. Randolph in Wilson's narrative of the formation 1872.

1827.

was moved in the House of Commons, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the report of the Committee of Supply (being resolutions granting money which was required in order to carry on the public service) be brought up. Mr. Tierney opposed the motion, alleging that there was no administration to be responsible for such expenditure. Admitting the undoubted privilege of the king to choose his own ministers, he claimed for the House of Commons that it had a right to know to whom the administration had been entrusted before it separated for the Easter holidays. He therefore moved to defer the consideration of the report until May 1. Mr. Secretary Canning replied that the delay which had arisen in filling up the office of premier had resulted from a hope that Lord Liverpool's illness might prove but transitory, and that ministers were ready to assume as much responsibility for the same as for any other act of their administration. But no further delay would take place, inasmuch as the king, regarding the premier's recovery as hopeless, had authorised the formation of a new ministry. Under these circumstances, he claimed that the necessary supplies should be granted, otherwise the House would affix a stigma upon those who still remained in office, which would be equivalent to a vote of censure, and would strike at their existence as a ministry. Mr. Tierney then asked for an assurance that some definite arrangement with respect to the administration would be entered into before the House adjourned for the holidays. This Mr. Canning refused to give; whereupon Mr. Tierney declared that he must persist in his amendment, and resist any further grant of money until he knew in whose hands the government of the country had been placed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reminded the House that they had already been informed that the proposed grant was merely sufficient to enable the government to be carried on until after the recess. No more money would be

6

asked for until a new administration was formed; otherwise he admitted that it would have been the imperative duty' of the House to oppose the same. The original motion was then put, and agreed to on division. The want of agreement amongst the great party leaders with whom negotiations for a new ministry had been entered into induced Sir Thomas Lethbridge to give notice of a motion for an address to the king that he would be pleased to take into consideration, in the appointment of his ministry, the great importance of unanimity in any cabinet on questions affecting the vital interests of the empire.' On April 6, however, the day on which this motion was to have been brought forward, the king came to town, professedly in order to take decisive steps to put an end to this protracted disorganisation of the cabinet, and Sir T. Lethbridge, by the advice of his friends, determined not to press his motion, although invited to proceed with it by Mr. Secretary Canning. The king had now finally determined that the new ministry, like its predecessor, should consider the Catholic claims as an open question,' and also that Mr. Canning should be premier, notwithstanding his previous prominence as the strenuous advocate of emancipation."

11. Mr. Canning's Administration.-April 1827.

It was on April 10, 1827, that Mr. Canning, who held at the time the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was commissioned by the king to prepare a plan for the reconstruction of the administration under his own presidency. The policy he intended to pursue in reference to the Roman Catholic question is uncertain, and has been made the subject of

• Parl. Deb. N.S. v. 17, pp. 157-171. VOL. I.

Ann. Reg. 1827, p. 99.

N

1827.

.1827.

controversy between his friends and opponents. A new writ was moved for, on behalf of Mr. Canning (upon his appointment as First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer), on April 12. At the same time it was moved to adjourn the House for the Easter holidays, until May 1. This motion was opposed by Mr. Tierney, who desired that the House should know of whom the new ministry would be composed before it adjourned for so long a period. In reply, Mr. Wynn stated that undoubtedly some difficulties had occurred in the formation of a ministry, but that an arrangement was now in progress, and would certainly be completed before the time of adjournment had expired. The motions were then agreed to without a division. As soon as he was in a position to do so, Mr. Canning made overtures for assistance in the formation of a ministry to his colleagues in office; but for the most part they were either civilly or contemptuously rejected. Nearly the whole interval of the adjournment was spent in further negotiations. Disappointed in the support of his former associates, Mr. Canning was obliged to make new alliances, and his administration was finally completed by a Coalition with the Whigs, between whom and himself there had been heretofore a decided political antagonism. Explanations were given in the House of Commons by the retiring as well as by the incoming ministers on May 1, and in the House of Lords on the day following. The new premier was assailed by an inveterate hostility in both Houses of Parliament; and attacks upon the new ministry were continued throughout the session. The principles of the Coalition were vehemently attacked, and the Opposition made repeated attempts, by enquiries of ministers, to elicit further particulars than had already been communicated in regard

Lewis, Adminis. p. 440. Bulwer's Life of Palmerston, v. 1, bk. iv d Parl. Deb. N.S. v. 17, (Lords)

pp. 548, 853, 1083, (Commons) pp. 507, 553, 1028.