Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

Political

of the

as has been already noticed, the king's counsels must be kept secret by all who take part therein."

e

William IV., whose bearing as a constitutional monarch neutrality won for him universal confidence and respect, affords us Sovereign. an admirable example of the nature of the intercourse that ought to subsist between the sovereign and those who are permitted to have an audience with him. We learn, upon undeniable authority, that his majesty was always accessible to everyone who desired an interview, that he was in the habit of seeing many persons daily, with whom he would converse freely upon any topic upon which they had information to impart; but that, 'although he may listen to them, he never converses upon any matter which may be the subject of communication with his government, or respecting ministerial or official arrangements in contemplation. Politics are never the subject of conversation, . . . even common articles of intelligence are not noticed otherwise than as conveyed in the newspapers.''

May

mediate

parties;

The only deviation on the part of William IV. from between the strict rule of abstinence from all political conversation contending with persons not of the number of his 'immediate constitutional advisers,' was when, at the request or with the knowledge of his ministers, he would invite an interview with some peer or lord of Parliament, for the purpose of endeavouring to allay the violence of party strife, or of promoting the success in Parliament of ministerial measures which he deemed of vital consequences, and which were in jeopardy through the extent of opposition they were encountering. At such times, the king would not hesitate to point out to his auditors the great public

d See ante,
55, 195. And
Corresp. Will. IV. with Earl Grey,
vol. ii. p. 229.

See ante, vol. i. p. 186. Corresp.
Will. IV. with Earl Grey, vol. i.
pref. pp. vii.-ix.

Ibid. pp. 61, 62; and see p. 176.

The conduct of George III., in 1806, and later years, was characterised by a like scrupulous impartiality. See Yonge, Life of Lord Liverpool, vol. i. pp. 217-221. See also as regards the Prince Regent, Ibid. vol. ii. p. 242.

advantages that in his judgment would ensue from a dispassionate and conciliatory consideration, in a spirit of compromise, of the particular question."

but not so

as to en

croach on

It is true that there is an ancient constitutional rule which forbids the sovereign from taking notice of any matter in agitation or debate, in either House of Parlia- the independence ment, until the same has been officially communicated for of Parliahis concurrence, and which declares that no opinion of ment. the sovereign, upon any bill or other proceeding depending in either House, ought to be reported, with a view to bias the votes of members. This regulation is necessary in order to guard the independence of Parliament in the exercise of its legislative functions. But it was originally framed under circumstances widely different to those of our own time, and to remedy an evil which no longer exists. While, as regards the Houses of Parliament in their collective capacity, the rule is still capable of the strictest interpretation,' it must not be construed so as to infringe upon the ancient and undoubted privilege of every peer of the realm, as an hereditary councillor of the crown, to have an audience with the sovereign, for the purpose of making any representation he may think fit upon public affairs. In general, the sovereign would receive such communications without comment; reserving for the ear of his constitutional advisers his personal opinion upon any debateable political question brought before him in this manner. But in extreme cases, when it may be advisable to endeavour to reconcile conflicting opinions and to conciliate rival parties, we are warranted by constitutional precedent in claiming for the sovereign a right to interpose, and with the weight which belongs to his elevated position to proffer counsel and advice to any

See Corr. with Earl Grey, vol. ii. pp. 19, 21, 33, 38, 64, 198. Similar efforts were attributed, by public rumour, to her majesty queen Victoria, during the party conflicts upon the Reform question, in 1867.

See ante, vol. i. p. 52. And see Jesse, Life of Geo. III., vol. i. pp. 337-347.

See May, Parl. Prac. ed. 1863,

p. 314.

See ante, vol. i. pp. 51-53.

influential statesmen, irrespective of their particular standing towards the existing administration. But such an act of interposition is only suitable as a last resource, to restore harmony to the body politic. It is never justifiable for the purpose of creating an antagonism between the two Houses of Parliament; as when George III., in 1783, canvassed the House of Lords against the India Bill, which had passed the Commons, contrary to his most serious convictions, instead of withholding his sanction to the measure, dissolving Parliament, or (as he afterwards did) requiring the ministers who introduced it to resign. It is only as a mediator in cases of emergency, and in order to remove obstructions to the progress of legislation, that the sovereign is constitutionally at liberty to express his individual opinions to peers and lords of Parliament, with the view of influencing their conduct in Parliament upon a particular question.' And any such expression of opinion ought to be strictly limited to advice and counsel, and should not (except in the case of persons in the civil service of the crownTM) amount to an interference with the freedom of action of any member of the legislature.

Thus, in the year 1700, when a furious controversy was raging between the two Houses on account of an attempt by the Commons to pass a measure which the Lords disliked, but which was popular in the country, by tacking it to a bill of supply, William III., though he too objected to the measure, saw the extreme peril of any conflict upon such a question, and exerted himself to get the bill passed by the Lords. He let it be known that he considered the passing of the bill as, on the whole, a lesser evil than its acceptance. Whereupon the temper of the Lords underwent a considerable change.

* See ante, vol. i. P. 52. 'Hearn, Govt. of Eng., p. 178. Such persons, if holding seats in Parliament, are subject to the rule which requires political unanimity in every member of the administration. 'Perfectly sensible of the necessity of giving a positive and unequivocal support to his government,' King William IV. insisted upon every

member of his household, having a seat in either House, voting with ministers on their Reform Bill, in 1831 and 1832, under penalty of dismissal from office. His majesty's conduct in this matter was highly commended by the Prime Minister. Earl Grey, Corresp. with Will. IV. vol. i. pp. 290, 295; vol. ii. pp. 167, 179. And see post, p. 331.

Few indeed altered their votes, but a sufficient number abstained from voting to permit of the passing of the bill, without amend

ment."

Again, in 1832, William IV. interposed to induce a majority of the Peers to accept the Reform Bill which had passed the House of Commons, as being a less painful and hazardous alternative than the proposed creation of a sufficient number of peers to ensure the success of the measure in the House of Lords. This proceeding, though upon the face of it an obvious interference with the independence of Parliament, and as such emphatically condemned by Sir Erskine May, was approved of, at the time, by Earl Grey, the Prime Minister, as an act of conciliation, becoming in the sovereign, as well as the means of avoiding a far greater evil.P

tion of the

ator, how

We may therefore admit that the personal interposi- Interposition of the sovereign to mediate, in extreme cases, Sovereign between contending parties in the state, is a commend- as a mediable and appropriate service, and of benefit to the com- to be monwealth. But it is most needful that he should bear exercised. in mind the weight that will naturally be attached to every word he utters, and carefully avoid giving expression to any opinions at variance with those entertained by his responsible advisers, unless, as in 1783, he is prepared to take the consequences of their resignation or dismissal. Moreover, the substance of any such conversations should invariably be communicated to the Prime Minister, with as little delay as possible, in order to prevent any future misunderstandings, or inconvenience."

During the Grey administration, in November 1831, a circumstance occurred which induced the Premier to address a word of caution to the king, lest the strict line of abstaining from the expression of political opinion towards persons not in his constitu

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

condemning the interference of the
king. I am now disposed to agree
with Mr. Hearn in thinking the con-
duct of the king, under the circum-
stances, to have been justifiable.

P Earl Grey, Corresp. with Will.
IV., vol. ii. pp. 439-452.

See ante, vol. i. p. 53. Camp-
bell's Chancellors, vol. v. p. 565.

Earl Grey, Corresp. with Will.
IV., vol. ii. pp. 40, 44, 48, 56, 147.

Constitutional restraint

on the

in such cases.

[ocr errors]

6

tional service might be overstepped without the knowledge or consent of ministers. In the lawful exercise of his privilege as a peer, the Duke of Wellington (then in opposition) undertook to sovereign write to his majesty, enclosing a memorandum on the great danger to which the country was exposed by the violence of the political unions, which had originated from the prevailing agitation on parliamentary reform. The king, without waiting to communicate this memorandum to any of his ministers, at once replied to the duke's letter, informing him that the Government were fully alive to the peril he referred to, and that there existed a cordial union of sentiment on the subject between his majesty and his government.' Immediately afterwards the king forwarded copies of this correspondence to the Prime Minister. Earl Grey could not refrain from expressing his surprise at the perusal of these papers, or from stating to the king that the propriety and constitutional character of them' appeared to him 'more than questionable.' His majesty replied that on receiving the duke's memorandum it had occurred to him 'that as a peer and a privy councillor his grace had a right to address to him by letter that which he might have communicated in a private audience if he had thought fit to ask it. That in any other case, his majesty might have sent the letter, &c., to Earl Grey, and confined himself to an acknowledgment of the receipt, and to informing the writer that it had been so disposed of.' Subsequently the king assured Earl Grey that his majesty's reply to any communication from his grace relating to such matters will in future be limited to a simple acknowledgment,' a promise which he afterwards adhered to, on the receipt of a second letter from the duke on the same subject. In expressing his satisfaction at being informed of this determination, Earl Grey added that it certainly might in many cases produce inconvenience, if his majesty were to express opinions to any but his confidential servants in matters which may come under their consideration, with a view to the advice to be submitted to his majesty upon them.s

Q. Victoria

as a con

stitutional

Upon the accession of our gracious queen, and until after her marriage with Prince Albert, her majesty has confessed sovereign. that she permitted herself to be influenced by 'strong feelings of partisanship,' in favour of the Whigs, who were then in power. But the prince early understood the position which it becomes the sovereign of Great Britain to hold between conflicting political parties, and the line of conduct which, as the consort of that sovereign, it was

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
« ПредишнаНапред »