this prac claiming the seat for another candidate. On April 5, change 1867, a member called the attention of the House to the tice. practice that, when a petition praying for the seat was presented against any person who had been appointed to an office of profit under the crown, no writ could issue until the petition had been decided.' He pointed out a recent example of the vexatious operation of the existing usage, whereby a minister of the crown had been kept out of the House of Commons by reason of a petition claiming his seat, which was afterwards withdrawn; and he moved, that whenever a member of this House shall accept an office of profit under the crown, a writ for a new election may issue, notwithstanding that the time limited for presenting a petition may not have expired, or that a petition praying for the seat may have been presented. A technical objection prevented the debate on this motion from proceeding; but it was remarked by an old and experienced member, that the mover had made out no case for altering the rules of the House' in this matter. For that which might turn out to be the property of one person ought not to be given to another. In the very rare case of cabinet ministers not being able to take their seats for a fortnight or three weeks. the Secretary to the Treasury, or some of the subordinate officers of the Government who did not vacate their seats, might very well discharge the necessary business in their absence." Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxvi. pp. 11991201. And see ibid. December 15, 1868, which shows that the House of Commons continue to adhere to the practice explained in the text, notwithstanding the altered mode of trying election petitions. In Canada the proposed change has been adopted since 1857. By the Consolidated Statutes of Canada (c. 3, sec. 16) it is provided that a new writ may be issued for the election of a member of the Assembly to fill up any vacancy arising subsequently to a general election, and before the first Speech from the throne. 11. The Functions of Ministers of the Crown in relation to Parliament. Thus far our attention has been mainly directed to the mode in which ministers of the crown find entrance into Parliament, for the general purpose of representing therein the authority of the crown, and the conduct of the several branches of the executive government, and in order to enable them to administer the affairs of state which have been assigned to their control, in harmony with the opinions of that powerful and august assembly. We must now point out the functions appertaining to ministers in connection with Parliament, defining those which belong to the administration collectively, and those for which particular ministers are accountable. 1. THE PARLIAMENTARY DUTIES OF MINISTERS COLLECTIVELY. Our observations on this subject may be suitably arranged under the following heads :-(a) The Speech from the Throne and the reply thereto. (b) The introduction of public bills and the control of legislation. (c) The oversight and control of business generally. (d) The necessity for unanimity and cooperation amongst ministers, on the basis of party, and herein of the functions of the Opposition. (e) Questions put to ministers, or private members, and statements by ministers. (f) The issue and control of royal or departmental commissions. (a.) The Speech from the Throne, and the Address in reply. According to modern constitutional practice, the first duty of ministers in relation to Parliament is to prepare the speech intended to be delivered by, or on behalf of the sovereign at the commencement and at the close of every session. Parliament being the great council of the crown, it has always been customary for the sovereign to be personally present when it is first assembled. But the duty of declaring the causes of summoning Parliament has been assigned, from the earliest times, to one of the king's principal ministers, usually the Lord Chancellor.h In addition to the formal opening of the cause of the summons' by the Chancellor, it was usual for the sovereign himself to address a few words of compliment, congratulation, or advice to his faithful Parliament. This was understood to proceed directly from the heart of the sovereign, and was not intended as a substitute for the more formal and official utterance of the minister. Thus, at the opening of the first Parliament of King James (A.D. 1603) it is recorded: The king's speech being ended' [the which is omitted from the journal, because it was too long to be written in this place'] the Lord Chancellor made a short speech, according to the form and order.' At other times, however, James I. dispensed with the services of the Chancellor, and made his own speech to be the vehicle of communicating to Parliament the causes of summons.j 6 Upon the accession of Charles I., the following ceremony was observed at the opening of his first Parliament:-The king's majesty being placed in his royal throne, the Lords in their robes, and the Commons present below the bar, his majesty commanded prayers to be said. And, during the time of prayers, his majesty put off his crown, and kneeled by the chair of estate. Then it pleased his majesty to declare the cause of the Elsynge, Meth. of Parl. c. vi. Lords' Journals, vol. ii. p. 264. These speeches, contrary to modern usage, were spoken before the Commons were commanded to choose their Speaker. On the above occasion, when the Speaker was presented for the king's approval, his majesty repeated the speech he had previously delivered, 'for that he supposed many of the Commons of the Lower House were absent when he then delivered VOL. II. U the same.' Ibid. p. 265. Ibid. vol. iii. pp. 8, 209. A similar beautiful example of a monarch merging the sovereign in the man, in the presence of his people, was afforded by George III., when, at his coronation, unadvised by precedent or counsel, he doffed the royal crown that he might with becoming humility partake of the Holy Communion.' Edinb. Review, vol. cxxvi. p. 37. summons of this Parliament,' in a speech which, in comparison with the quaint and pedantic harangues of his royal father, was brief and business-like. It concluded in these words :-'Now, because I am unfit for much speaking, I mean to bring up the fashion of my predecessors, to have my Lord Keeper to speak for me in most things; therefore, I commanded him to speak something to you at this time-which is more for formality than any great matter he hath to say unto you.' Then followed a few observations from the Lord Keeper, setting forth the king's reasons for calling the present Parliament.1 After the Restoration, the ancient and constitutional practice was continued of entrusting to the Lord Chancellor the formal communication of the causes for convening Parliament; whilst the sovereign gave personal expression to his desires and sentiments upon the occasion." One of Charles II.'s own speeches is probably the first instance of an avowedly written speech read by an English monarch to the assembled Parliament. On October 21, 1680, both Houses being present, the king said: My Lords and Gentlemen, I have many particulars to open to you; and because I dare not trust my memory with all that is requisite for me to mention, I shall read to you the particulars out of this paper.' Then follows the royal speech, which, contrary to the ordinary practice, was not supplemented by any observations from the Lord Chancellor." Since the Revolution of 1688, there has been but one address from the throne at the opening of Parliament— that which is uttered by the mouth of the king when present, or by the Lord Chancellor in his behalf, and by his express command, or by commissioners deputed by p. 435. Lords' Journals, vol. iii. As in the case of George I., who, from his inability to speak English, directed the Lord Chancellor to read the speech, when he opened Parliament in person. Campbell's Chancellors, vol. iv. p. 600. Her Majesty Queen Victoria followed this precedent when she opened Parliament on February 6, 1866, and again, on February 5, 1867. respon the sovereign in his absence. And it has become the in- Ministers variable practice, and is an acknowledged constitutional r right, to treat this speech, by whomsoever written, as the the king's manifesto of the minister for the time being, so as to admit of its being freely criticised or condemned, with the usual license of debate.P William III. was too independent a monarch to receive his speech cut and dried from the hands of any one, though he did not hesitate to avail himself of the ability and experience of his Lord Keeper Somers to clothe his own high thoughts and purposes in dignified and judicious language. And even after Somers had retired from office, his accomplished pen was still employed by the king on this service. 6 We have a notice, concerning the speech at the opening of Parliament in 1701, which points to the introduction of that which has since become an unvarying usage. The crafty and experienced Earl of Sunderland-who was the chief adviser of James II. during most of his unhappy reign, and who contrived to exercise immense influence over King William until his retirement from public life in 1697-writing to Lord Somers, to advise him upon the proper management of the new Parliament, says: It would be well for the king to give order to two of the Cabinet to prepare the speech, as the Duke of Devonshire and Secretary Vernon, and bid them consult in private with Lord Somers, rather than to bring to the Cabinet a speech already made.' Sunderland's advice was taken in such good part, that the speech with which King William opened this his last Parliament, on December 31, 1701, was entrusted to Somers to draft, notwithstanding that the great ex-Chancellor was no longer a minister, although P Massey, Reign of George III. vol. i. p. 156. Parl. Hist. vol. xxiii. p. 266. Mirror of Parlt. 1830, sess. ii. p. 36. A similar latitude is allowed in the debate upon the address: witness the speech of Mr. O'Connell, on February 5, 1833, when he styled Macaulay, Hist. of Eng. vol. iv. p. 726. speech. |