Castlereagh–Canning duel

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.

The incumbent Prime Minister, the Duke of Portland, was reluctant to lose either Canning or Castlereagh and delayed a decision for an extended period.

The duel, in which Canning was wounded in the leg by Castlereagh, resulted in the final collapse of the Portland government and the advancement of Spencer Perceval as the new Prime Minister.

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 for what were considered his outstanding talents.

[2][3] 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 because of his humble origins.

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, who had already established a reputation as a reliable and capable administrator[11] during his tenure as a Cabinet minister, thus ascended to become an indispensable figure within the government.

[13] Pitt promised him the next open Cabinet post, but died in January 1806, whereupon William Grenville and Charles James Fox formed the Ministry of All the Talents.

[16] After the death of Fox, Grenville tried to strengthen his government and split the group by making overtures to Canning and possibly Perceval, while ignoring the other two.

To secure the maritime superiority of the Royal Navy, Canning successfully proposed neutralising the fleet of neutral Denmark either through diplomatic overtures or, if necessary, by force, to remove it from Napoleon's grasp.

Canning regarded the previous commander Wellesley as a suitable choice, while Castlereagh supported George III's demands in the Cabinet for a formally higher-ranking officer and ultimately prevailed.

[26] Wellesley's forces were victorious over the French at the Battle of Vimeiro[27] in August 1808, but were subsequently placed under the command of the two generals Burrard and Dalrymple.

[28] John Moore, who was subsequently dispatched to replace the two recalled generals, and who was once again viewed with scepticism by Canning, did not fare much better in the eyes of the British Cabinet.

Despite repeatedly voicing his misgivings within the Cabinet, 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.

[37] 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 to 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.

The British Foreign Secretary 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.

[40] The Walcheren Campaign soon failed to reach its goals and swiftly deteriorated into a military disaster during the summer of 1809, ultimately proving to be a complete failure.

Perceval and Lord Liverpool, however, thought otherwise, as they devised a scheme in which a Cabinet overhaul was the means used to remove the unsuspecting Castlereagh from the War Office without exposing him (and ultimately the government) in public.

Ellis attempted to mediate and sent Yarmouth copies of several letters in which Canning had warned the Prime Minister not to conceal the ongoing discussions.

While supposedly illegal, by the dawn of the 19th century duels still occurred fairly regularly and continued to be a common practice in the upper echelons of society.

[51] His political nemesis, William Pitt the Younger, had fought a duel with George Tierney in May 1798 following a slight in the House of Commons.

[53] George III was enraged and dismayed upon learning of the incident and reminded Pitt that as Prime Minister, he should have prioritised the interests of the nation over personal considerations.

[55] 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.

According to the report of his second, Castlereagh was in a relaxed and cheerful mood during the carriage ride to the duel site and calmly talking in a lively discussion about a fashionable opera singer.

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.

[65] He sent a letter to the King in which he apologised for demanding a duel, but at the same time denied that Canning had any reason to complain about his actions as Minister of War.

[66] 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.

[79] In 2009, John Campbell published his book Pistols at Dawn: Two Hundred Years of Political Rivalry from Pitt and Fox to Blair and Brown.