Strict e strongest representations were made to him upon the nature of the question; whereupon he was removed from office, upon the unanimous recommendation of the cabinet. In 1833 T. B. Macaulay, commissioner of the board of control, spoke and voted against ministers on the West India Bill (upon which there was a great party struggle), but he tendered his resignation beforehand. But his resignation was not accepted, on account of his great reputation in Parliament. In 1849 Mr. Baines, the president of the poor law board, voted against the government measure for the repeal of the navigation laws, but the prime minister explained to the House of Commons that Mr. Baines had only accepted office conditionally that he should be allowed to vote as he thought fit upon this question." Again, in 1854, upon another question, Mr. Baines felt it his duty. to oppose his colleagues; but his proffered resignation was declined, on account of the high sense entertained of his public services.h The strictness of discipline which is now observed discipline. amongst the subordinate ministers of the crown may be further illustrated by the following examples In 1863 the chief secretary for Ireland, after writing to a member of the House of Commons, promising his assistance in passing a certain Bill, opposed the measure in Parliament, because the authorities in Ireland' disapproved of the measure.i In 1866 Sir Roundell Palmer (attorney-general), in debate on the Government Reform Bill, with respect to the savings bank franchise in that measure, took the liberty of saying that he regarded it as "by no means the best part of the proposal of the government," which, as he afterwards remarked, 'was as much as saying that as far as he individually could, he disapproved of it.' Commenting upon a similar proposition in the Reform Bill of the Derby ministry, in 1867, Sir R. Palmer (being then in opposition) characterised it as 'utterly wrong in principle, and untenable and unsettling in practice.'k Should any indiscreet or inaccurate language be publicly made use of by a cabinet minister, if upon a question of public policy, it may justly be made the subject of parliamentary criticism, but it would be more reasonable to call for explanations from the minister whose language is complained of, than to hold the administration e Corresp. Will. IV. with Earl Trevelyan, Life of Macaulay, v. Hans. D. (3) v. 102, p. 681. Ib. v. 183, p. 1681. k Ib. v. 186, p. 590. See action of solicitor-general (Sir J. D. Coleridge) on the Kirwee prize money case, Ib. v. 201, p. 1547. And of law officers of crown on Judicial Com®. Bill, Ib. v. 203, p. 1721. responsible for the same. Nevertheless, the whole cabinet must be held accountable for such utterances, unless they are disavowed by the prime minister or otherwise explained to the satisfaction of Parliament.1 Note the flippant and unbecoming speeches of Lord Palmerston, and of Sir James Graham, at a banquet given to Admiral Sir Charles Napier, on March 7, 1854, previous to his departure in command of the Baltic fleet, at the commencement of the war with Russia; and the subsequent attack of the Admiral upon Sir J. Graham, after his return from an unsuccessful campaign.m It is understood that members of the government, who are not in the cabinet, should be chary of addressing the House, except when the business of their respective departments is under discussion." language Cabinet ministers, however, do not hold themselves Indiscreet responsible for the language of subordinate members of by ministhe government. Thus, in the debate on the Reform Bill, on September 21, 1831, the solicitor-general for Ireland gave utterance to an unconstitutional dogma, in regard to the power of the crown, in conjunction with the House of Commons, to disfranchise boroughs, without reference to the House of Lords. This assertion occasioned great excitement, and ministers were called upon to disavow it. But the chancellor of the exchequer (Lord Althorp), while repudiating the sentiment, said 1 See comment on alleged discrepancy between ministerial statements made by Mr. Disraeli in the H. of C. and Earl of Malmesbury in the H. of L. Hans. D. v. 191, pp. 17871814. And see debates in both Houses on indiscreet speech by Mr. Bright (pres. board of trade) on Irish land question; and a letter from Mr. Bright to a public meeting commenting offensively and indecorously upon the H. of L. Ib. v. 195. pp. 2053, 2059; v. 196, p. 357; v. 197, pp. 1, 121. And Mr. Speaker's observations on necessity of refrain ing from allusion to debates in other House, Ib. v. 229, p. 1630. See references made to a speech by Mr. Gladstone, when chanc. of the exch., in recess of 1862, upon American affairs, wherein he declared that President Davis had 'not only created an army, but made a nation,' an observation which was 'regretted' by his colleagues, and explained away to m Martin, Pr. Consort, v. 3, pp. 37, 131. Ilans. D. v. 131, p. 674. n Quar. Rev. v. 129, p. 343. ters. Ministers require a parliamentary majority. he 'did not think it just, or fair, or candid, or according to the customs or usages of this House, to make the government responsible for any statement which may, in the course of a debate, be made by gentlemen who are not members of the cabinet.'• In order to enable ministers to carry on the government in harmony and agreement with Parliament, without their being subjected to the degradation of becoming the mere tools of a democratic assembly, it is necessary that they should be sustained by an adequate majority in both Houses, and especially in the House of Commons. This advantage is ordinarily secured to them through the agency of party. Whichever political party predominates in the nation, and in the legislature, presumably selects its best men to be its leaders and representatives. The sovereign having chosen from amongst such those whom she is willing to appoint to be her councillors and administrators, the interests of party and of the state alike demand that they should receive from Parliament a generous support; and that so long, at least, as the House of Commons continues to repose confidence in them, they should be permitted to advise and influence the deliberations of Parliament, with the authority that belongs to their office as ministers of the crown. Relying upon the judgment and discretion of the men to whom both crown and Parliament have agreed to entrust the direction of public affairs, the legislative chambers should be willing to receive with favour whatever measures they may deem it expedient to submit for their sanction; and should be slow to impede or interfere with the action of ministers in executive matters, otherwise than by the free criticism and promptness to demand the redress of all manifest grievances, which is the inherent prerogative of Parlia ment. The attendance of members who are known to be supporters of government is specially invited by circulars Mir. of Parl. 1831, pp. 2312-2315. ance of from the secretary of the treasury, issued shortly before Attendthe opening of Parliament, and occasionally during a session when important divisions are anticipated. Upon a particular emergency, the leader of the House himself will address his supporters in this way; or convene a meeting of his party to consider the course to be taken in a political exigency. Similar circulars are issued, from time to time, on behalf of the opposition.P trol. Prior to the Reform Act of 1832, party organisation Decline of seldom failed to secure an adequate support in Parlia- party conment for the existing administration. But the large reduction in the number of placemen, and steady supporters of Government in the House of Commons, consequent upon the abolition of Treasury nomination boroughs and the insubordination of the new members of the Reformed Parliament to party leaders, rendered government by party increasingly difficult. Again, the rapid and entire change of opinion which was exhibited by Sir Robert Peel in the settlement of the corn law question in 1846, a change which he refrained from communicating beforehand even to the leading members of the conservative party, gave a further shock to the old system, from which it has never fully recovered; thereby rendering the repeal of the corn laws a landmark not only in our economical, but also in our constitutional history. Moreover, as the other great questions which of old divided the Whigs and Tories into hostile camps were disposed of, and as the bulk of the nation began, in consequence of the spread of education, to take a deeper interest in matters of political concern, the number of independent members has naturally and inevitably increased, until it has become exceedingly Yonge, Life of Ld. Liverpool, v. 2, p. 249. Mir. of Parl. 1835, p. 2803. Hans. D. v. 186, p. 1684; see lb. v. 207, pp. 1290, &c.; v. 208, p. 1102. Grey, Parl. Govt. new edit. p. 226. Walsh, Results of Reform Act See Peel's Memoirs, v. 2, pp. party con Decline of difficult for any party to secure a reliable working matrol. jority in the House of Commons. Mr. Hare in his work on representation gives the experience of the late Sidney Herbert of the effect of the decline of party control in the House of Commons. The extent to which the old system of subordination to party leaders was sometimes carried may be inferred from the humorous description of an old Scotch member (Ferguson of Pitfour), who was a staunch supporter of Mr. Pitt, and who used to say, 'I was never present at any debate I could avoid, or absent from any division I could get at. I have heard many arguments which convinced my judgment, but never one that influenced my vote. I never voted but once according to my opinion, and that was the worst vote I ever gave. I found that the only way to be quiet in Parliament was always to vote with the ministers, and never to take a place.'t Edmund Burke defined an independent member of Parliament as a member that no one could depend upon; but this definition would find no favour with the present race of legislators." Nor is it the government alone that suffers from the decline of party organisation; the opposition likewise are no longer subject, as of old, to the direction of one acknowledged chief; and it is not uncommon, nowadays, to witness an opposition in Parliament split up into different factions, each carrying on a sort of guerilla warfare, in its own way." The writer, however, has no desire to enlarge upon this topic, or to speculate upon the means of remedying the undeniable evils attendant upon a weak government. He professes to deal with facts and not with theories; and it has been his aim to limit himself strictly to the purpose in hand. He would, therefore, simply direct attention to the facilities afforded under constitutional government for the free expression of the opinion of Parliament upon all ministerial acts, as well as upon all legislative measures; and state the grounds upon which ministers of the crown are entitled to expect from Parliament either a cordial support or a fair trial. p. 316. Ed. 1865, pp. 235-237. u Hans. D. v. 182, pp. 923, 926. Mr. Disraeli's observations, Hans. D. v. 205, p. 1656. |