the legislative power to rid itself of the restraints of a monarchy, was fraught with peril to the State. 'The sagacity of Cromwell saw that a monarchy, or "something like a monarchy," in conjunction with a Parliament, was best adapted to the whole structure of the English laws, and best suited to the character of the English people.' How to bind these hitherto opposing elements together, in a cordial and intimate union, was a problem which the great Protector was unable to solve. But this difficult question was about to be determined by one who combined all Cromwell's energy and foresight with a deeper regard for constitutional obligations. of Com an early Such a thing as the formal introduction of the king's ministers into Parliament, for the purpose of representing the crown in the conduct of public business therein, had been previously unknown in England. It is true that, Placemen from an early period, various ministers of state, and in House subordinate officers of the executive government, had mons from obtained entrance, from time to time, into the House of period. Commons; there being no legal restriction to prevent any number of servants of the crown from sitting in that assembly. The presence of these functionaries served, no doubt, to increase the influence of the crown over the deliberations of Parliament; but they occupied no authoritative position in the popular chamber; the House, in fact, merely tolerating their presence, and often entertaining the question whether they should be permitted to retain their seats or not." We read that in Henry VII.'s time, and Henry VIII.'s, ministers of state, officers of the revenue, and other courtiers, found an account in creeping, through boroughs, into the House of Commons.' As a natural result of this proceeding, it is mentioned, in a debate Knight, Pop. Hist. of Eng. v. 4, p. 449. "Hats. Prec. v. 2, pp. 22, 42. ▾ Gurdon, Hist. of Parls. v. 2, p. 355. Ministers in the Lords. on placemen in Parliament, in 1680, that in the 20th year of Henry VIII., there was an Act passed to release to the king certain loans he had borrowed, which Act was much opposed, but the reason that is given why it passed is, because the House was mostly the king's servants; but it gave great disturbance to the nation.'" 6 The presence of the king's ministers in the House of House of Lords was a matter of course, and unavoidable, because the chief ministers of state were generally chosen from amongst the peers of the realm, who have always been regarded as the hereditary councillors of the crown. But though they were thereby in a position to do the king much service, by furthering his plans in Parliament, we have no proof that they were authorised to represent the government in their own chamber, in the modern acceptation of the term. They would naturally address their brother peers with greater authority, when holding high offices of state; but this could not materially affect their relations towards the House itself, so long as parliamentary government was unknown, because it is essential to that system that there should be official representation in both branches of the legislature, and especially in the House of Commons. Even had it been possible for a parliamentary government to have been administered through the House of Lords alone, the effect would have been the depression of that branch of the legislature which springs from the people, and is accountable to the people, and the ascendency of the monarchical and aristocratical elements of our polity.' Such, indeed, were the aims of the Tory party in the reign of Queen Anne. They held that the House of Commons ought to be a check upon the crown, but that no minister ought to sit in that House. The Whig theory, which resulted in a compromise called 'West's Expedient,' from the name of its proposer, admitted ministers into the House of Commons, if duly elected after the acceptance of office, and instead of leaving to the sovereign the free choice of his political servants, insisted that they should possess the confidence of that House. In the following reign, Robert Walpole became first minister of the crown. He was the first prime minister that ever sat in the House of Commons, and during his pre-eminence, he refused the title of earl and the white staff of the lord high treasurer, for he had the sagacity to perceive that the rule of Great Britain was about to pass from the House of Lords to the House of Commons. By the enlargement of the continuance of Parliament from three to seven years, which took place in 1716, the shifting and uncertain tenure of a seat in the House of Commons was done away with, and by its increased stability and experience, the second chamber gradually developed the powers which are appropriate to it under parliamentary government, until it began to assume its present pre-eminence.d But it was not until after the Reform Bill of 1831, which gave to the democratic element a preponderance in the constitution over the aristocratic, that the centre of gravity in the State was distinctly transferred from the Upper to the Lower House. House of It was some time before the commencement of the Ministers present century before it became customary for a fair of the proportion of cabinet ministers to sit in the House of Commons. Commons. Until then, from at least the epoch of the Restoration, the political power of the Lords had been dominant alike over the crown and the people-a supremacy which continued to exist until the passing of the first Reform Bill—and during this period the members of the House of Lords had evinced a decided superiority over those of the Commons in education, refinement of manners, in liberality of sentiment, and in political wisdom, as well as in the possession of political power. We are unable to determine when privy councillors e Const. Hist. v. 3, ch. 16; 'Shorter d See Ewald's Life of Walpole, See Buckle, Hist. of Civ. pp. 409-411. West. Rev. v. 54, p. 1, &c. T. Rogers, in N. Am. Rev. v. 131, p. 44, &c. Privy council lors in Commons, 6 were first permitted to sit in the House of Commons. It was alleged in a debate in the House in 1614, that House of anciently' no 'privy councillor, nor any that took livery of the king,' was 'ever chosen' to that assembly. But in the reigns of Edward VI. and his royal sisters (1547-1601) mention is made of privy councillors and great officers of state as having seats therein. And in 1614 (temp. James I.), it being remarked that several privy councillors had got seats, no one seemed desirous of removing them." officials. In the event of members of the Lower House being appointed to offices of state, or places of profit under the crown, it was customary, prior to the revolution of and other 1688, to permit them to continue in the undisturbed possession of their seats, unless the nature of their employment required a continued residence abroad, as in Ireland, or in the colonies; or unless they were assistants or attendants at the House of Lords; as in the case of the judges and crown officers. But if not specially moved by the crown to take action in the premisses;— or unless the enforced and unavoidable attendance of any such member in the House of Lords, or elsewhere, upon the king's service, by virtue of the office conferred upon him, justified the House in declaring his seat vacant, there does not seem to have been any lawful method whereby the House of Commons could avoid the seat of members so appointed. And even where a new writ might, in confirmity with precedent, have been properly ordered, it was not invariably done. Thus;-in 1575, it was resolved by the House of Commons, that any member being in service of ambassade,' shall not in anywise be amoved from his place, nor any other be elected during such term of service.i In 1606, the Speaker informed the House that he had See post, p. 113. Com. Jour. v. h Parl. Hist.v. 1, p. 1163. 1, p. 104. received a letter from the lord chancellor, stating that since the previous session, his Majesty had appointed certain members of the House on special services: to wit one, as chief baron of the exchequer in Ireland; another, as treasurer at war in Ireland; others, as ambassadors to France and Spain, respectively; and another as attorney-general; and desiring to know the pleasure of the House whether the same members were to be continued, or their places supplied with others.' The matter was referred to a Committee of Privileges, who were charged to consider also the case of a member who had been appointed master of the ordnance in Ireland, and of another, who had been sent on a foreign embassy. Upon the report of this committee, the seats of the chief baron, treasurer, and master of the ordnance in Ireland, who were presumed to hold their patents for life, were declared void, and new writs ordered; but the ambassadors were permitted to remain. The case of the attorney-general gave rise to much difference of opinion; and finally, the House evaded any direct decision thereon, by refusing to allow a question to be made of it. In 1609, a new writ was ordered in the case of a member appointed to be governor of a colony in America. With regard to Ineligi members appointed to be judges of the courts of law in bility of England, the question was raised in 1604, whether such persons ought to have place in the Higher House, or sit here during the same Parliament'; but no resolution was come to by the House at that time. In 1605, it was resolved, upon a report from the Committee of Privileges, that two members of the House of Commons, 'being attendants as judges in the Higher House, shall not be recalled.'m In 1620, a motion was made for a k H. of C. 31 Henry VI. Com. Dig. in Com. Jour. v. 1, p. 257. judges. |