Ministers, on their part, being the chosen and confidential servants of the sovereign, are necessarily the depositaries of all the secrets of state, and have access to the highest sources of information on every political question. They are usually men who from their ability and experience are peculiarly qualified to guide the deliberations of Parliament, and to aid their fellow members in forming sound conclusions upon every public matter that may be brought before them. They distribute the patronage of the crown at their own discretion; which, in itself, adds very materially to their authority and influence. These advantages are of inestimable service in enabling them to mature and propound acceptable measures, and in facilitating the progress of the same through the legislative chambers. Responsi- On the other hand, either House of Parliament is at bility to House of liberty to give free expression to its opinion upon every Commons. ministerial act or measure; and no administration can long remain in office that does not possess the confidence of Parliament, and particularly of the House of Commons. In giving or withholding their confidence, the Houses of Parliament are only restrained by considerations of public policy. Unless they are satisfied that a ministry, which does not fully represent their political sentiments, can be replaced by another, more acceptable and efficient, they will probably be content with vigilant supervision and control over its proceedings and recommendations, rather than to incur the hazard of a change of government. But if they believe that the direction of public affairs ought to be entrusted into other hands, they have only to declare either expressly or impliedly—that ministers have forfeited their confidence, and a change must inevitably take place. So that, whether directly or indirectly, the ultimate verdict upon every exercise of political power must be sought for in the judgment of the House of Commons. Let us proceed to examine in detail the various points included in the foregoing definition of parliamentary government. The subject will naturally admit of being divided into three heads: I. The presence of the ministers of the crown in parliament. II. The functions of ministers of the crown in relation to Parliament. III. The responsibility of ministers to Parliament, and particularly to the House of Commons. I. The presence of the Ministers of the Crown in Parliament. We have already, in a former chapter, disposed of the historical part of this enquiry, and have described the position occupied by the king's ministers in Parliament anterior to the revolution of 1688; and the growth of the principle, which was not formally acknowledged until after that epoch, that the presence of responsible ministers in both chambers of the legislature is a fundamental obligation, under our constitutional system.' b It will now be our endeavour to take a practical view of this subject, and to explain the established law and custom of Parliament upon the several questions connected therewith. с ministers While, as we have seen, there is no absolute neces- Cabinet sity for every member of the cabinet to hold a depart- must be in mental office under the crown, the spirit of the constitu- Parliament, tion requires that every one occupying a seat in the Cabinet should also be a member of one or other of the Houses of Parliament. And no one should be introduced into the cabinet, or be permitted to continue therein, who is out of Parliament; unless he is likely to be returned by some constituency within a reasonable period. During the short-lived administration of Mr. Canning, in 1827, Cabinet the office of Postmaster-General, which has been usually held by a ministers out of Parliament for a time. Peer-because, until 1866, it disqualified for a seat in the House of Commons-was filled by a commoner, Lord Frederick Montagu, who had no seat in Parliament. But so much inconvenience arose from this great department being unrepresented in either House, that thenceforth, until 1868, the office was invariably conferred upon a member of the House of Lords.f When the Wellington administration was formed in July 1828, the Right Hon. W. Vesey Fitzgerald, who at the time represented the county Clare in the House of Commons, was appointed to the joint offices of President of the Board of Trade and Treasurer of the Navy, with a seat in the Cabinet. This, of course, vacated his seat in Parliament; but on going for re-election he was defeated by Daniel O'Connell. He continued out of the House, although retaining his place in the ministry, until March 1829, when he was returned for the borough of Newport. Adverting to this case, some years afterwards, the Duke of Wellington remarked that it was unprecedented and objectionable, but that it occurred at a time (unlike the present), when it was possible on any day to find a seat for a government candidate.1 In 1835, when Sir Robert Peel's ministry was being constructed, it was determined to confer a seat in the Cabinet upon Sir George Murray, the Master-General of the Ordnance. He accordingly became a candidate for a seat in the House of Commons, but was defeated in the county of Perth. It was then agreed between Sir R. Peel and the Duke of Wellington, that it was inexpedient, and would establish an inconvenient precedent, were he to continue in the Cabinet. After his rejection at Perth, Sir G. Murray volunteered to resign his departmental office, but Sir R. Peel wrote and urged him to retain it. He added, however, 'I have more difficulty about the Cabinet, and I need not say solely and exclusively on the score of constitutional precedent. The holding of a seat in the Cabinet by a responsible adviser of the Crown-that adviser being neither in the House of Lords nor Commons-is, I fear, extremely unusual, if not unprecedented, in modern times. Of course if there were any immediate prospect of your return, the objection could not apply.' After this Sir George ceased to attend the Cabinet Councils, although he continued at the head of the Ordnance Department until a change of ministry occurred. Upon the formation of the Melbourne ministry on April 18, 1835, Lord Palmerston was appointed Foreign Secretary, though at • See post, p. 487. Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxii. p. 1077. Smith's Parlts. vol. iii. p. 197. Ibid. p. 18; Annual Register, 1828 (Chronicle), p. 191. Peel, Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 51. Hans. Deb. vol. lxxxiv. p. 758; the time without a seat in Parliament; having been defeated at the previous general election, and no vacancy having since occurred for which he could offer. About a month afterwards enquiry was made of Ministers in the House of Commons whether any arrangements were in contemplation to obtain a seat for his lordship in either House. Lord John Russell declined to answer this question, merely observing that the absence of Lord Palmerston was only temporary; and that were it 'continued for any length of time these might be very proper questions.' But before the close of the month of May Lord Palmerston was returned for the borough of Tiverton, in room of Mr. Kennedy, who accepted the Chiltern Hundreds in his behalf.m In December 1845, Mr. Gladstone, on being appointed Colonial Secretary in Sir R. Peel's administration, was defeated when he went for re-election in the borough of Newark. He continued out of Parliament until after the resignation of this ministry, which took place in June 1846. The fact of his absence from Parliament was commented upon in the House of Commons on the 6th March, but no explanations were given by the Government, except that he continued to attend the Cabinet Councils." In the year 1861 the Palmerston administration had no Cabinet or other minister specially representing Ireland in the House of Commons, save the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he resigned in the course of the session, but was speedily replaced by another person. For a great part of the time there was not even an Irish Lord of the Treasury in the House, and an English minister had to undertake the conduct of Irish business." nate minis obtain Frequent allusion was made during the session of Subordi1861, to the aforesaid extraordinary and unprecedented tersexdeficiency of ministers for Ireland in the House of Com- pected to mons, but no formal debate took place thereon, a for- seats. bearance which may be accounted for by the fact that with regard to subordinate members of an administration who have no seat in the Cabinet, the same constitutional Subordi ters out of Parliament necessity for their presence in Parliament does not exist, as in the case of the responsible advisers of the crown. Nevertheless, as a general rule, it is expected that all political servants of the crown should obtain seats in Parliament, in order that they may assist in carrying on the queen's Government. And it is customary for a ministry to cancel any such appointments when it is found that the original nominee is unable to obtain a seat in either House." During Earl Grey's administration (1830-1834) Attorney-General nate minis. Campbell, and a junior Lord of the Admiralty, were without seats in Parliament for a considerable time. The Attorney-General is said to have been thrown out of a popular constituency by a cry which the Dissenters raised on some temporary matter.' He remained excluded for the greater part of the Session; but at last obtained a seat vacated by the Lord Advocate on his being promoted to the Scottish Bench. But in England neither the Attorney-General nor the junior Lords of the Admiralty are ever admitted to the Cabinet. In 1846, when Sir R. Peel was Prime Minister, it was noticed that three or four persons holding office under the crown and usually in Parliament,' were unable to get elected to the House of Commons. Upon which Sir R. Peel remarked as follows: 'I do not know any rule by which [persons] holding these offices should necessarily be members of this House. I do not deny the inconvenience, but, having confidence in the approbation and support of Parliament upon the policy of government, I am content to forego that advantage which, in ordinary times, the crown possesses.' Whereupon the subject was dropped without any further comment. ... The second Derby administration, from its appointment in February 1858 until March 4, 1859, had no Scotch Lord of the Treasury, and the entire charge of Scottish business in the House of Commons devolved in the interim upon the Lord Advocate, which occasioned much dissatisfaction. t P Corresp. Will. IV. with Farl Mirror of Parl. 1834, p. 1435. Jeffery, ex-Lord Advocate, who va- Hans. Deb. vol. lxxxiv. p. 228. |