interests of the Colonial Office were not better attended to, he should take the sense of the House upon the question. Sir G. Grey admitted that the facts had been correctly stated, and that the present arrangements could not be sanctioned for any length of time; but declared that the prime minister was constitutionally competent to take temporary charge of any department. Parliament was afterwards informed that Lord John Russell would probably be at his post by April 28. In point of fact, he resumed his seat in the House of Commons on April 30, when no further reference was made to his absence.j 2. IN REGARD TO THE ADMINISTRATION COLLECTIVELY. k terial The responsibility of the ministers of the crown to MinisParliament, as it is now understood, is practically a re- responsponsibility to the House of Commons. For, notwithstand- sibility. ing the weight and authority which is properly attached to the opinion of the House of Lords upon affairs of state, the fate of a minister does not depend upon a vote in that House. The Lords may sometimes thwart a ministry, reject or mutilate its measures, and even condemn its policy; but they are powerless to overthrow a ministry supported by the Commons, or to uphold a ministry which the Commons have condemned." But the verdict of the House of Commons itself derives its strength and efficacy from its being a true reflex of the intelligent will of the whole community. Until a vote of the Commons has been ratified by the constituent body, it will seldom be regarded as conclusively determining upon the existence the House of Commons, passed on When have no majority in of a ministry. When, in 1848, Sir Robert Peel was first informed of the overthrow of royalty in France, and the proclamation of a republic, he shrewdly remarked:'This comes of trying to carry on a government by means of a mere majority of a chamber, without regard to the opinion out of doors.'m The prerogative of the crown, in the choice, nomiministers nation, and dismissal of ministers, and the circumstances under which Parliament may lawfully interfere therewith, House of have already engaged our attention in a former chapter; Commons. wherein it has also been shown, that the lack of a majority in the House of Commons, favourable to the choice of the sovereign, however undesirable, and even objectionable, as a general rule, does not operate as a positive restraint or limitation upon that choice in the first instance." The recognition of this principle serves not only to secure for the sovereign a legitimate share in the direction of the government, but is otherwise valuable. For it will sometimes happen that a ministry, though in possession of the general confidence of Parliament, loses for a time its popularity; and until it shall have become capable of again administering the government in harmony with the House of Commons, it is necessary and advisable that it should relinquish the helm of the state into other hands. The new administration, selected by the crown from an opposite political party, has meanwhile an opportunity of vindicating the choice of the sovereign, and of winning, in its turn, the favour of Parliament-without which it must speedily fall -by skilful administration and by an acceptable policy. This is, in itself, a public advantage, for a long unbroken tenure of power on the part of any ministry has a natural tendency to beget corrupting influences, and to create an injurious sense of irresponsibility." m Cobden, Political Writings, vol. cepting office without a majority in ii. p. 232, n. the House of Commons, see ante, vol. See ante, vol. i. PP. 211-214. • See Edinb. Rev. vol. cxxvi. p. 562. For cases of ministers ac i. pp. 212-214; also, Hans. Deb. vol. exci. p. 1704. P Edinb. Rev. vol. cx. p. 61. It is of the utmost importance that there should be a Miniscomplete understanding between the members of a newly-planations. appointed administration and the Houses of Parliament. It is, therefore, customary upon the formation of a new ministry, for explanations to be immediately given in both Houses, if they are then in session, and if not, as soon as possible after they have met." This course was pursued in 1782, upon the reconstruction of the Whig ministry under Lord Shelburne, consequent upon the death of the late premier, Lord Rockingham, when the principles which formed the basis whereon the new ministry was formed were communicated to the Lords and Commons on July 9 and 10. In like manner, when Sir R. Peel resigned on the Corn Law question, in 1845, and, after an ineffectual attempt by Lord John Russell to form a ministry, resumed office, with enlarged powers, these events having occurred during a recess, upon the re-assembling of Parliament ministerial explanations were given in both Houses; voluntarily, by Sir R. Peel, in the Commons, and in compliance with a formal request, by the Duke of Wellington, in the Lords. Until, however, the re-appointment of the Palmerston administration, in 1859, it was accounted sufficient if the ministerial statement was made by the Premier in his own chamber, without it being needful to repeat it in the other House.* But, owing to complaints, in 1858, of the irregularity of this course," it has since been the usual, though not the invariable practice, for ministerial statements upon a change of ministry to be addressed, simultaneously, if possible, to both Houses, the consent of the crown to such disclosures having been duly obtained." Ministerial explanations. But the House has no right to ask for more than a general exposition of the main principles on which a government is formed. It has no right to enquire into all the conditions which may have taken place between the several members of the government.' Any conditions, however, which have been specially referred to' in debate by new ministers as the stipulations and conditions upon which they agreed to accept office, may be suitably enquired into by other members." When Lord John Russell was appointed prime minister in 1846, upon the resignation of Sir Robert Peel, the Whig party being then in a considerable minority in the House of Commons, Mr. T. S. Duncombe enquired what were the principles on which the new government was formed, and the policy they intended to pursue ? observing that, according to all parliamentary usage, when a new man became prime minister, he had felt it a duty due from him to the country and to the people to explain to Parliament on the first occasion the principles on which his government would be conducted.' Lord John Russell questioned the necessity for any such explanation; observing, that he had been a member of the House for more than thirty years, proclaiming and declaring his opinions on almost every occasion, so that they could now be no secret to the House. Nevertheless, in reply to enquiries that had been made in regard to his intended policy on certain great public questions, he admitted that he was bound, as far as he could, to state his opinion as to the mode in which the government should be conducted in respect to those particular questions; and he did so at considerable length, refraining, however, from pledging himself to any particular course with regard to some of those questions.* On February 27, 1852, when the Earl of Derby took office, he explained the general principles upon which his administration would be conducted. But afterwards, in reply to an enquiry as to the intended policy of ministers in reference to the corn laws, Lord Derby claimed the right of abstaining from any positive declarations on the subject until after the election of a new House of Commons, when ministers would adopt a policy in accordance with the general opinions of the country therein expressed. Upon the in the House of Lords (Hans. Deb. Mr. Disraeli, confirmed by Mr. Gladstone. Hans. Deb. vol. cxxxviii. p. 2039. * Ibid. vol. lxxxvii. pp. 1168–1185. Ibid. vol. cxix. pp. 889-906, 9981014. return of Earl Derby to power, in 1866, the new ministers again claimed the right of refraining from an explicit statement of certain parts of their intended policy until the subject matter thereof should be brought before Parliament in the ordinary manner, i.e. by the introduction of a bill for the settlement of the particular question." a On March 1, 1858, upon the re-appointment of the Earl of Derby as premier, he stated in the House of Lords the general principles upon which he would carry on the government. No similar statement was made in the Commons. Accordingly, on March 12, after the new ministers had been re-elected, Mr. Osborne expressed his surprise that no account had been given to that House of the policy intended to be pursued by ministers. He trusted that when the new Chancellor of the Exchequer asked a vote in Supply, he would be prepared to give the House some programme of his intended measures, and that the House would grant no supplies until he had done so. The House then went into committee on the Navy Estimates, when Sir J. Pakington (First Lord of the Admiralty) deprecated the observations just made, and said that the Premier had given the required information in another place,' and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli) and other ministers, in their addresses to their constituents: any repetition of these statements would, he thought, be a waste of time. On March 15, Mr. Osborne again adverted to the unusual course taken by ministers in omitting any explanations of their intended policy to the House, and expressed astonishment at being referred to statements made elsewhere on the subject. He also characterised Lord Derby's explanations in the House of Lords as being vague and incomplete. In reply, Mr. Disraeli denied that it was an essential or invariable practice for ministers to offer to the House a formal programme of the measures they intend to bring forward, or of the principles they profess. He showed that according to precedent, when the Premier was a peer, it was unnecessary to repeat in the Commons any statement he might have addressed to the Lords. And he declined to give the House any additional information upon the policy of the government beyond that which had already been communicated elsewhere. Lord John Russell reiterated his conviction that it was unnecessary for a minister on taking office to make a declaration of his policy, and urged upon the House their duty to abstain from an attempt to embarrass the Queen's ministers upon their first appointment, and to judge of them by their measures. After a few remarks from other members the matter was dropped.c 2 Ibid. vol. clxxxiv. pp. 907-909. Ibid. vol. cxlix. p. 22. b Ibid. pp. 106, 107, 111. |