Castlereagh-Canning duel

The Castlereagh-Canning duel was a pistol duel between the British Minister of War Viscount Castlereagh and Foreign Secretary George Canning, which took place on September 21, 1809, at Putney Heath. The reasons for the duel were the rivalry between the two politicians and numerous disagreements between them over the conduct of the war against Napoleonic France in 1808 and 1809. These differing opinions ultimately led to Canning's demand for a new appointment to the War Office in the spring of 1809, accompanied by a threat of his own resignation. Prime Minister Portland was reluctant to lose either Canning or Castlereagh and delayed a decision for an extended period. Instead, the matter was discussed with King George III and other members of the cabinet without Castlereagh's knowledge. Castlereagh was not informed of the circumstances for an extended period. He only became aware of the discussions in the late summer of 1809 and, in response, challenged Canning to a duel a few days later.

Canning and Castlereagh

The duel, in which Canning was wounded in the leg by Castlereagh, resulted in the final collapse of the Portland government and the ascension of Spencer Perceval as the new prime minister. Castlereagh and Canning, meanwhile, spent several years on the backbenches, absent from any government responsibility.

The origins and rise of Castlereagh and Canning

Political patron of both duelists: William Pitt the Younger (after 1806)

While Castlereagh was the son of an aristocratic family with Irish-Scottish roots, George Canning was the son of a disinherited Irish landowner and an actress. He spent his early years in poverty before, thanks to the generosity of a relative, he received a privileged education at Eton and Oxford, where he excelled intellectually and was quickly regarded as a promising politician by what was considered his outstanding talents. A celebrated orator and unashamedly ambitious, he was nevertheless regarded as an outsider by his more privileged political contemporaries, who viewed him with a mixture of snobbery and suspicion due to his humble origins. By contrast, Castlereagh was perceived as the archetypal representative of a privileged group of insiders, to whom rank and dignity came effortlessly, despite his perceived lack of eloquence.

Both began their political careers as supporters of the Whigs around Charles James Fox. As the increasingly bloody French Revolution unfolded, both underwent a shift in their political orientation and joined William Pitt the Younger, who promptly recognized their political talent and supported them. Nearly of the same age, the two rapidly became rivals for promotions and government posts in Pitt's cabinet. Upon Pitt's resignation in 1801, both followed Pitt's example and returned to the backbenches. Pitt encouraged numerous of his closest political associates to join the newly constituted government under the leadership of Henry Addington (whom he had previously proposed for the role). Castlereagh followed Pitt's advice and became President of the Board of Control. However, the rhetorically adept Canning remained on the opposition benches, deriding Addington and ardently advocating for Pitt's cause. This angered Pitt, who had not only proposed Addington himself as his successor but regarded him as his temporary replacement and supported him in the House of Commons. Upon Pitt's return to the office of Prime Minister in 1804, Castlereagh retained his previous office and assumed the additional role of Leader of the House of Commons, thereby relieving Pitt, who was already in poor health, of the burden of attending to the House of Commons. He also assumed control of the War Office. Castlereagh, who had already established a reputation as a reliable and capable administrator during his tenure as a cabinet minister, thus ascended to become an indispensable figure within the government. In contrast, the ambitious Canning was compelled to accept a relatively insignificant post outside the cabinet and was also overlooked for subsequent cabinet vacancies. After a debate, Pitt promised him the next open cabinet post, but he died in January 1806, whereupon William Grenville and Charles James Fox formed the Ministry of All the Talents. Canning and Castlereagh were not involved in the formation of the government. Following an agreement with other young "Pittites," including Spencer Perceval, the group went into opposition together.

Castlereagh and Canning in Portland's wartime government

The Duke of Portland in 1782

Following the collapse of the brief administration of all the talents, King George III selected the elderly Duke of Portland as the new Prime Minister in the spring of 1807.

In the new cabinet, Castlereagh was given his former office, the War Office. Canning was awarded the Foreign Office following the Marquess of Wellesley's refusal. Despite the substantial promotion, Canning also claimed the post of Leader of the House of Commons, which Castlereagh had held. Castlereagh was prepared to relinquish this office (which he felt was a burden), but refused to give it to Canning. As a compromise solution, the position was assumed by Spencer Perceval.

As in his first term as prime minister, when Charles James Fox had been the dominant figure in the government, Portland was once again more of a figurehead than the head of government. In practice, Portland proved to be weak in leadership, sluggish, and conflict-averse. He usually stayed away from cabinet meetings. As a result of Portland's weakness, each department was left to its own devices. Consequently, no higher authority in the cabinet could arbitrate disagreements between the departments. The four leading figures in the Cabinet were Canning and Castlereagh, plus Spencer Perceval in his dual role as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons, and the Home Secretary, Lord Hawkesbury (who inherited the title Earl of Liverpool in 1808 after the death of his father, with which he became famous). Additionally, the Cabinet included Castlereagh's uncle, Lord Camden, who held the position of Lord President of the Council.

Conflicts over warfare

George Canning, portrait of Thomas Lawrence (around 1822)

In 1807, the war against Napoleonic France continued. Like its predecessors, the Portland cabinet was divided over the optimal strategy. Numerous disagreements arose within the cabinet, which increasingly impeded the government's ability to function. In contrast, George Canning had increasingly established himself as the driving force of the government. To secure the maritime superiority of the Royal Navy, Canning successfully proposed neutralizing the fleet of neutral Denmark either through diplomatic overtures or, if necessary, by force, to remove it from Napoleon's grasp. At the same time, he persuaded the Portuguese royal family to flee to Brazil to protect the Portuguese fleet from Napoleon's grasp. Castlereagh supported both measures. Even when Napoleon's intervention in Spain presented the opportunity to open up a new theater of war, Canning was the driving force behind the prompt decision to dispatch troops under the command of Arthur Wellesley (later Duke of Wellington) to the Iberian Peninsula to support the uprising against Napoleon. Castlereagh was indisposed for several months during 1808 with an unspecified illness. As a consequence, he became a liability to Canning. The two frequently disagreed in the Cabinet over the question of a suitable commander-in-chief. Canning regarded the previous commander Wellesley as a suitable choice, while Castlereagh supported King George III's demands in the Cabinet for a formally higher-ranking officer and ultimately prevailed. Wellesley's forces were victorious over the French at the Battle of Vimeiro in August 1808, but were subsequently placed under the command of the two generals Burrard and Dalrymple. In the Convention of Cintra, both generals renounced the advantages they had gained through the armistice that had been negotiated with France. John Moore, who was subsequently dispatched to replace the two recalled generals, and who was once again viewed with skepticism by Canning, did not fare much better in the eyes of the British cabinet. He was compelled to withdraw his army after Napoleon intervened. Moore was killed in a rearguard action in January 1809, thereby reinstating Wellesley as commander-in-chief. The army was initially evacuated and sent to Portugal in the spring.

Despite facing significant internal criticism, Canning defended Moore's campaign in the House of Commons against the opposition's intense criticism in a compelling and unanimously endorsed speech, preventing the government from suffering a setback in the subsequent close vote.

Canning and Castlereagh also increasingly disagreed about the optimal strategic approach. Canning advocated for a concentration of the limited military forces on the Iberian theater of war. Castlereagh, on the other hand, was preparing a British invasion of the Netherlands or northern France in parallel with the Iberian campaign to support and relieve the military pressure on the ally Austria. This led to the planning of the Walcheren Expedition. Canning perceived this as a potential threat to the success of the Iberian campaign, yet he ultimately acquiesced to the majority decision of the cabinet.

Canning initiated a discussion with Prime Minister Portland and conveyed his opinion that the government was not adequately equipped to fulfill its duties. He also alluded to the possibility of his resignation. A few days later, he met with Portland at his country estate in Buckinghamshire and reiterated his comments. He advised Portland to resign due to health reasons and also demanded a new appointment to the War Office. Portland, who was reluctant to lose either Canning or Castlereagh, attempted to pacify Canning by agreeing in principle, although he initially took no further action. Instead, he initially informed Lord Bathurst (the President of the Board of Trade) and the King, but not Castlereagh. Over the summer, other ministers were involved in discussions about the Cabinet reshuffle and how to deal with Castlereagh. Castlereagh's uncle Lord Camden was also involved, but could not bring himself to report openly to his nephew about what was happening. Portland and Canning initially assumed the opposite and only found out days later that Camden had remained inactive. King George III was unwilling to accept Canning's resignation and simultaneously prohibited Portland from informing Castlereagh of the events. Giles Hunt interprets the King's actions as an attempt to prevent the ascension of Canning, a talented but inexperienced politician, to the position of prime minister.

Canning, who observed the country in a state of imminent peril in a life-and-death struggle with a superior opponent, became increasingly restless and regularly renewed his demands at Portland, threatening to resign. While he dutifully defended the government and the war effort in the House of Commons, he harshly denounced what he saw as intolerable conditions to acquaintances. For Giles Hunt, Canning's actions were not a blow against a political rival, but rather an expression of mounting despair throughout the war. From an insider's perspective, Canning had observed that the Cabinet was unable to effectively manage the various crises and that the war was on the verge of a negative turn. John Campbell, however, notes that Canning was not only the dominant figure in the cabinet at this time, but was also increasingly acting like it. He was already openly strategizing for the foreseeable succession to Prime Minister Portland, in which he and Spencer Perceval were considered the two most promising candidates. He prepared a memorandum for the King in which he argued against the next prime minister from the House of Lords, which would have limited the succession to him and Spencer Perceval. He also stated in the memorandum that he did not want to serve under Perceval, which would have influenced the election in his favor as an indispensable member of the Cabinet. Additionally, he pledged to Lord Wellesley (Arthur Wellesley's brother) the position of Minister of War as soon as Castlereagh had been removed from office, despite lacking the requisite credentials. Douglas Hurd also perceived Canning's actions as presumptuous and his demand for dismissal as an act that transgressed the boundaries of normal political competition.

Castlereagh's challenge

Viscount Castlereagh, portrait by Thomas Lawrence (c. 1810)

The Walcheren expedition swiftly deteriorated into a military debacle during the summer of 1809, ultimately proving to be a complete failure. For Canning, this outcome served to reinforce his concerns. He consequently demanded Castlereagh's immediate dismissal. Perceval and Lord Liverpool, however, advocated for a different solution. They persuaded Prime Minister Portland to resign and proposed a significant cabinet reshuffle to address the situation. In this manner, Castlereagh would have been removed from the position of War Minister in a manner that would not compromise the government or the unsuspecting. Portland, who had suffered a stroke in August, accepted the proposal and announced his resignation on September 6, 1809, as soon as a successor had been found; he also informed Canning at the same time that Castlereagh could not simply be dismissed. Canning then renewed his resignation and absented himself from the Cabinet meeting the following day. He probably anticipated being able to secure his appointment as prime minister through this means.

Castlereagh then became suspicious and demanded an explanation from his uncle, who finally revealed the events to him. Castlereagh also tendered his resignation and ceased attending cabinet meetings. After withdrawing for 12 days, he sent Canning a letter of several pages on September 19, 1809, in which he accused him of having violated the principle of good faith, both privately and publicly. Although he acknowledged Canning's right to criticize, he felt that his honor had been violated. He also accused Canning of conspiring behind his back. The harshly worded letter was tantamount to an invitation to a duel. Castlereagh named Lord Yarmouth as his second, while Canning named Charles Ellis. Ellis attempted to mediate and sent Yarmouth copies of several letters in which Canning had warned the Prime Minister not to conceal the discussions. Nevertheless, Castlereagh, who felt humiliated and betrayed, remained adamant and asserted that Canning could have simply resigned. Canning was thus compelled to acquiesce to the demand for a duel.

Background: Duels as a social practice

Caricature of the duel between Pitt the Younger and his opponent Tierney (1798)

Although prohibited, duels continued to be a prevalent practice among the upper classes in Britain at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. Those who were challenged had few options but to accept the duel challenge, as social isolation was a significant consequence of refusal. While earlier duels were typically fought with thrusting weapons, by the late 18th century, the pistol duel had become the dominant form of duel in Britain. In practice, these were extremely inaccurate. Many duelists were not sufficiently familiar with the weapon, and in some cases both opponents deliberately missed. The majority of duels were not fatal, and if both opponents agreed that honor had been served, the duel often remained inconclusive. The practice of dueling was not uncommon among high-ranking politicians. For example, Charles James Fox was injured in a duel in 1779. His political antipode, William Pitt the Younger, had fought a duel with Fox supporter George Tierney in May 1798 following an insult in the House of Commons. Both combatants emerged unscathed from the initial exchange of fire. Pitt discharged his weapon into the air during the second encounter, and both parties subsequently agreed that further action was unnecessary. King George III was enraged and dismayed upon learning of the incident and reminded Pitt that as prime minister, he should have prioritized the interests of the nation over personal considerations. Nevertheless, the practice of dueling persisted.

The duel

Satirical depiction of the duel between Castlereagh and Canning by Isaac Cruikshank

The duel took place at 6 a.m. on September 21, 1809, at Putney Heath on Lord Yarmouth's estate - within sight of the house where Pitt the Younger had died three years earlier. Both duelists were accompanied by their seconds. According to the report of his second, Castlereagh was in a relaxed and cheerful mood during the carriage ride to the duel site and engaged in a lively discussion about a popular opera singer. Castlereagh was an accomplished marksman; in his youth in Ireland, a political opponent had withdrawn his challenge when he learned of Castlereagh's skill with a gun. Canning had made his will and written a suicide note to his wife before the duel. Canning had never fired a gun and had never fought a duel. Therefore, his second and Yarmouth had to load and cock the gun for Canning. After a final attempt at mediation by the seconds failed, the duel took place.

The first duel, fought at a distance of twelve paces, was inconclusive. After a brief exchange between the seconds, Castlereagh declared that he was still not satisfied, so a second duel was necessary. During the second duel, Castlereagh's shot pierced Canning's thigh. It is unconfirmed that Canning's second shot grazed Castlereagh and shot off a button. Canning, who was hit, asked if a third round was necessary, which was immediately stopped by the two seconds who declared the matter closed. His second and Castlereagh helped Canning to Lord Yarmouth's nearby cottage, where a surgeon was already waiting to treat Canning's wound.

Because the bullet had passed through the flesh of the thigh and not an artery, there was little blood loss and Canning's wound healed completely within a few weeks.

After the duel: public reaction

The next day, the Morning Chronicle published a detailed account of the duel, as well as an editorial by its editor, a scathing attack on the two protagonists who had behaved irresponsibly at a time of national crisis. The Courier, which unlike the Morning Chronicle was closer to the government than to the Whig opposition, revealed a few days later that the reason for the duel had been the demand for Castlereagh's dismissal. Other newspapers also satirized the duel between "Mr. Canting" and "Lord Castaway," while the government initially tried to portray the duel as the result of a misunderstanding. William Wilberforce called the duel disgraceful and demanded that both men never hold office again. Spencer Perceval privately said that Castlereagh had acted out of a complete misunderstanding, while Lord Holland (the nephew of Charles James Fox) said that Castlereagh's behavior was more a sign of a thirst for revenge than a sense of wounded honor. The leading Whig, Charles Grey, saw Castlereagh as being in the right and said that it was impossible to defend Canning's conduct.

The majority of public opinion initially thought Canning was right. Castlereagh first justified himself to his closest relatives in the form of a letter. He sent a letter to the King in which he apologized for demanding a duel, but at the same time denied that Canning had any reason to complain about his actions as Minister of War. On October 3, 1809, he also published a vindication, which caused a shift in opinion as Castlereagh was now seen as the victim of a conspiracy by his cabinet colleagues who had secretly plotted against him.

A friend and Castlereagh loyalist leaked details of the duel and the events leading up to it to the leading British newspaper The Times in early October. Canning responded, also in The Times, with his version in an open letter to Lord Camden, placing some of the blame on Camden. A few days later, King George III was amused to be informed by Canning of all the details of the duel.

Historical impact

Spencer Perceval (1812)

The duel had lasting consequences both for the two protagonists and for British politics. Two days before the duel, Spencer Perceval and other cabinet members had concluded that they would either have to bring the leaders of the opposition (Grenville and Grey) into the government or recommend Canning to the king as Portland's successor. With Canning and Castlereagh now on the backbenches, two of the leading politicians had fallen far in public esteem and were outside any discussion of succession. The attempt to include the opposition failed, and Spencer Perceval became the new Prime Minister, forming a new government based around Lord Liverpool as War Secretary and Lord Wellesley as foreign secretary. Castlereagh and Canning spent the next few years out of government; Castlereagh, less driven than Canning, was not unhappy with his exile and enjoyed the inactivity. The restless Canning, on the other hand, found it difficult to come to terms with the frustrating role of backbencher. A first attempt by Perceval in 1812 to bring them both back into government failed when Castlereagh refused and Perceval wanted either both or neither back in the cabinet. Another attempt, after Wellesley's resignation, failed due to Canning's excessive demands; Liverpool, the successor to the assassinated Perceval, then ignored Canning and made Castlereagh Foreign Secretary. Castlereagh held the post until 1822 and played a key role in the political reorganization of Europe after Napoleon's defeat.

Research history

Between 1929 and 1931, the duel was the subject of a discussion between two distinguished Cambridge historians, Harold Temperley and Charles Webster, in the Cambridge Historical Journal. Webster, who had published a study of Castlereagh's foreign policy, defended Castlereagh. Temperley, Canning's biographer, justified Canning's conduct; he saw the influence of King George III as decisive and Canning as the one really responsible. He cited as evidence George III's letter to Portland in which George III swore Portland to secrecy and forbade Castlereagh to be privy to the discussions.

The duel between the two was the subject of a separate book by Giles Hunt in 2008 (The Duel: Castlereagh, Canning and Deadly Cabinet Rivalry). In his conclusion, Hunt noted that the duel ultimately had a positive effect on Castlereagh's political career, citing a ruling by Thomas Creevey in 1818 and explaining that Castlereagh's career was effectively over before the duel, but that the duel rehabilitated him in the eyes of the majority of the public. He also saw Castlereagh's demand for a duel as a partially irrational act.

In 2009, John Campbell published his book Pistols at Dawn: Two Hundred Years of Political Rivalry from Pitt and Fox to Blair and Brown. He devoted a chapter to the Castlereagh-Canning rivalry (Viscount Castlereagh and George Canning), describing the duel as the culmination of a political rivalry that spanned the entire political careers of both men. While political duels and political rivalries were and are nothing unusual, he saw the attempt by the two duelists to kill each other against the backdrop of the greatest war in British history to that point as unprecedented. He also referred to Thomas Creevey's judgment and saw Castlereagh as the beneficiary of the duel; without it, Castlereagh's career would have been over. Less driven by ambition than Canning, he had taken the loss of his office in stride.

In 2010, the complex interaction between Canning and Castlereagh was taken up by Douglas Hurd in a study of the foreign policy of successive British foreign secretaries; he saw the duel as the result of intense rivalry and ambition. He also noted that the tragedy of the duel was that although Pitt the Younger taught his two talented protégés much about the art of politics, he was never able to bring them together and get them to work together.

Bibliography

• John Bew: Castlereagh. A Life. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012, ISBN 978-0-19-993159-0.
• John Campbell: Pistols at Dawn: Two Hundred Years of Political Rivalry from Pitt and Fox to Blair and Brown. Vintage Books, London 2009, ISBN 978-1-84595-091-0, (Chapter Viscount Castlereagh and George Canning, p. 57–89).
• Giles Hunt: The Duel: Castlereagh, Canning and Deadly Cabinet Rivalry. I.B. Tauris, London 2008, ISBN 978-1-84511-593-7.
• Douglas Hurd: Choose your Weapons. The British Foreign Secretary. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London 2010, ISBN 978-0-297-85334-3, (Chapter Castlereagh and Canning, p. 1–68).