On January 16, 1840, the Duke of Wellington moved an amendment to the Lords' address in answer to the speech from the throne wherein her Majesty's approaching marriage with Prince Albert was announced, for the insertion of the word 'Protestant' before the name of the Prince. Having shown that it was in conformity with precedent, the amendment was agreed to, notwithstanding the opposition of the prime minister. But the success of this amendment was attended with no political consequences, though the matter gave rise to much discussion, both in and out of Parliament.t

and

of the

address.

It is customary for the leader of the House to en- The mover trust the moving and seconding of the address in seconder answer to the speech to some member who is not an 'habitual speaker';" and such occasions afford an excellent opportunity for the introduction to the notice of Parliament of members from whom a successful début may be anticipated. The House is always disposed to receive with favourable consideration new candidates for parliamentary distinction, and the numerous topics of public interest contained in the speech present a peculiarly advantageous opening for an inexperienced debater. And here it may be noticed, that by the 37th rule of the House of Commons, the proposer and seconder of such a motion ought to attend in their places in uniform or full dress.'

In selecting persons for this duty, it is usual, in the House of Commons, to inake choice of a member who represents the landed interest to move the address, and some one specially acquainted with commerce and mercantile affairs to be the seconder. No particular usage is observed in the House of Lords in this parti

cular."

The form and order of drawing up the address in

Ministerial

measures

Bills affecting

of the

answer to the speech, and the stages at which it is permissible to propose amendments thereto, need not be described, as they are clearly explained in May's 'Parmentary Practice.'"

X

Pending the agreement of the House to the address questions may be put to ministers, and addresses passed for the production of papers. But it is usual to defer the presentation of papers asked for, and to postpone a formal reply to an ordinary address, until the answer of the crown to this address has been reported."

The speech from the throne at the close of a session recapitulates the principal measures which have engaged the attention of Parliament, and to which the royal sanction has been given. Regret may be suitably expressed on this occasion at the inability of Parliament to mature legislation upon any particular subjects which were commended to their consideration in the royal speech at the opening of the session."

(b.) The introduction of Public Bills, and the control of

Legislation.

In addition to the measures specially commended to Parliament in the speech from the throne, it is the right and duty of ministers of the crown to submit to its consideration whatever measures they may deem to be necessary for the public service.

Where the rights of the crown, its patronage or prethe rights rogative, are specially concerned, although the subject matter of a proposed Bill affecting the same may have been generally recommended to the notice of Parliament in the speech from the throne, but a special royal message,—either under the sign manual, or verbally con

crown.

veyed through a minister of the crown,-is necessary to signify that her Majesty is pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament her interests, &c., in the particular matter.

This phrase does not mean that the crown gives its approbation to the substance of the measure, but merely that the sovereign consents to remove an obstacle to the progress of the Bill, so that it may be considered by both Houses, and ultimately submitted for the royal

assent.a

This intimation should be given before the committal of the Bill. But where a public Bill of this description is proposed to be initiated by a private member, and not upon the responsibility of ministers, the House ought to address the crown for leave to proceed thereon, before the introduction of the same; although, according to the practice of Parliament, it is not absolutely necessary to obtain this assent before the third reading.a In the case of a local or private Bill affecting the crown property or rights, the royal consent must be given before the third reading, or the Bill cannot be proceeded with.o

As regards Bills affecting the crown property under the charge of the commissioners of woods, the consent is signified by a privy councillor in the House on the production of a certificate from the officer having the management of the property. Sometimes this certificate is withheld because the crown property had not been sufficiently protected by the provisions of the Bill, in which event the Bill must be withdrawn.f

By modern constitutional practice, ministers of the

■ Hans. D. 191, p. 1445; v. 192, p. 732.

Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill, Mir. of Parl. 1833, pp. 1627, 1733, 2377, 2836.

* Ib. 1835, pp. 608, 724, 1826. Ib. 1837-8, p. 778. Hans. D. v. 63, p. 1585. Ib. v. 191, p. 1899, v. 192, p. 113. See the debate on this point in the House of Lords, April 28, 1868. And proceedings in the Lords, Irish peerage question, July 9 and

on

Ministers

responsible for

legislation.

crown are held responsible for recommending to Parliament whatsoever laws are required to advance the national welfare, or to promote the political or social interest of any class or interest in the commonwealth." This is a natural result of the pre-eminent position which has been assigned to ministers of state in the Houses of Parliament, wherein they, collectively, represent the authority of the crown, personify the wisdom and practical experience which is obtainable through every branch or ramification of the executive government; and as leaders of the majority in Parliament are able to exercise a powerful influence over the national counsels.

But it has only been by degrees, and principally since the passing of the Reform Acts of 1832, that it has come to be an established principle, that all important acts of legislation should be originated, and their passage through Parliament facilitated, by the advisers of the crown.

Thus Earl Grey (then in opposition) contended in 1829 that ministers having advised the sovereign to recommend a particular measure to the consideration of Parliament, were responsible for that advice, but that for the introduction of the measure into Parliament they were not at all responsible as ministers, but merely as members of Parliament; a doctrine which would not be countenanced in the present day.h

Formerly, ministers were solely responsible for the fulfilment of their executive obligations, and for obtaining the sanction of Parliament to such measures as they deemed to be essential for carrying out their public policy. But the growing interest which, of late years, has been exhibited by the constituent bodies upon all public questions, and the consequent necessity for systematic and enlightened legislation for the improvement

For a striking comparison of ancient and modern practice in regard to proper limits of duty of administrations and sphere of legislation, see Duke of Somerset on mon

archy and democracy, c. xi.

Mir. of Parl. 1829, p. 586. See Ld. John Russell's speech in 1848. Hans. D. v. 101, pp. 709,

710.

of our political and social institutions, and for the amelioration of the laws, in accordance with the wants of an advancing civilisation, together with the difficulty experienced by private members in carrying Bills through Parliament, have led to the imposition of additional burthens upon the ministers of the crown, by requiring them to prepare and submit to Parliament whatever measures of this description may be needed for the public good; and also to take the lead in advising Parliament to amend or reject all crude, imperfect, or otherwise objectionable measures which may at any time be introduced by private members.i

should not be divided on leave

to intro

duce a

minis

terial Bill.

It is contrary to parliamentary etiquette to divide the House House upon a motion for leave to introduce a Bill, when moved by a member of the administration. But note an instance where the introduction of a government Bill relating to Ireland was strenuously resisted, and several divisions taken thereon.' And here it may be remarked that a measure recommended to Parliament by the government, and for the success of which they hold themselves responsible, need not be introduced by a cabinet minister, but may be entrusted to a subordinate member of the ministry. Thus in 1831 the English Reform Bill was submitted to the House of Commons by Lord John Russell, who was not a member of the government,' but merely a subordinate political officer; i.e. paymaster of the forces. So the Irish Reform Bill in 1866 was brought in by Mr. Chichester Fortescue, the secretary for Ireland, but not a cabinet minister. And a similar Bill in 1867, by Lord Naas, under similar circumstances."

m

These high functions are performed in direct responsibility to Parliament, and especially to the House of Commons, to whom ministers are accountable for the policy and wisdom, as well as for the legality, of all their acts; because they are bound to exert themselves to the utmost in the service of the crown, and are justly liable to punishment if they undertake such obligations