Explanations.

But when, in 1867, three dukes were appointed to fill up vacancies in Lord Derby's ministry, occasioned by resignations the causes of which had been fully explained to both Houses, no further explanations were made on behalf of the newly-appointed ministers. The bare fact was stated to the Commons, but nothing seems to have been said about it in the Lords. Upon the appointment of Mr. Goschen to be first lord of the admiralty, vice Mr. Childers, resigned, no explanations were given."

When Mr. Gladstone retired from the cabinet, before the beginning of the session of 1845, owing to a difference with his colleagues in regard to a proposed increase of the Maynooth grant, he availed himself of the debate on the address at the opening of Parliament to explain the cause of his resignation. He said that he 'freely and entirely recognised the claim of the House to be correctly informed of the motives which lead members either to accept office under the crown, or to undertake the scarcely less grave responsibility of quitting it; and, therefore, could not refuse to give some account of what had recently occurred with respect to himself.' a

When Lord John Russell resigned his position in Lord Aberdeen s ministry, in 1855, he notified the House of Commons, through a friend, that he would take an early occasion of stating the grounds' of his resignation. Next day he gave this information. And when, shortly afterwards, the ministry itself was broken up, and ineffectual attempts were made, both by the Earl of Derby and by Lord John Russell, to form another, explanations were given, in both Houses, by these noblemen, as well as by the Duke of Newcastle, ex-secretary for war.c

On the foregoing occasion, Lord Derby observed that he thought it was the duty of every public man, whether he accepts or whether he abstains from accepting office, to be prepared to give at the proper time a full explanation, both to his own friends and to the country, of the motives which may have induced him so to accept or abstain.' Such explanations, however, should never be given until a government is actually formed, and the state of affairs is decided.' d

This rule has not been held to apply to the subordinate office of

y Hans. D. v. 185, p. 1575.

Ib. v. 204. p. 1505. See explanations, in 1871, on removal of Sir S. Robinson from the Admiralty Board on account of differences with his chief. Ib. v. 204, pp. 163, 945;

v. 205, p. 1295.

a Ib. v. 77, p. 77.
b Ib. v. 136, pp. 941, 960.

See ante, vol. 1, p. 224.
d Hans. D. v. 136, p. 1259.

a junior lord of the treasury. Upon the resignation of one of these functionaries, in 1861, the premier (Lord Palmerston) declined to state the reason for his retirement.e

After what has been already stated, it will be obvious that, upon the resignation of a ministry, or of any prominent minister, explanations should be given of the causes thereof, when the fact is announced to Parliament; provided that the permission of the sovereign to disclose the same has been first obtained. But when

a single member of a cabinet retires, until he has made his own statement in the House to which he belongs, the government cannot explain the grounds of his withdrawal to the other House.h

cerning

All ministerial explanations in the House of Com- Rule conmons are subject to the rule which provides that by explanathe indulgence of the House, a member may explain tions. matters of a personal nature, although there be no question before the House; but such matters may not be debated.' Any debate, therefore, following upon a ministerial explanation would be irregular; and no speech on such an occasion should be concluded by a formal motion, with a view to bring on a general debate.j

i

On May 5, 1868, however, Mr. Gladstone, on a formal motion for the adjournment of the House, asked Mr. Disraeli (the premier), to explain an apparent discrepancy between a statement he had made to the House on the day previous and one addressed to the House of Lords on the same subject by another minister. In reply, Mr. Disraeli gave a clearer statement of his intended meaning, which led to some debate and further explanations from Mr. Disraeli, when the matter dropped.k

e Hans. D. v. 164, p. 197. ↑ Ib. v. 123, p. 1698; v. 185, pp. 1312, 1323, and ante, p. 476.

See ante, p. 84.

Hans. D. v. 136, pp. 939, 943, 960; and see ante, vol. 1, p. 223, a delay in announcing the resignation of a whole ministry to the Commons, because the premier, by whom the formal statement should first be made, was a peer, and the Lords had ad

journed over the day.

May, Parl. Prac. 1883, p. 359. The Speaker and Mr. Disraeli, Hans. D. v. 174, pp. 1215, 1216. But upon May 4, 1868, on a formal motion to adjourn, a debate took place after a ministerial statement by Mr. Disraeli. Ib. v. 191, pp. 1694-1717.

* Hans. D. v. 191, pp. 1787-1819.

Minis

In the House of Lords, the practice on such occasions is less strict.'

terial ne- During the progress of ministerial negotiations, it gotiations. is, as a general rule, inexpedient and objectionable to make enquiries in Parliament as to whether particular individuals have been charged to form a ministryor invited to form part of a ministry-and upon what conditions. Such questions are inconvenient, as tending to the premature disclosure of confidential matters." But when difficulties and delays have arisen in the formation of a ministry, and it is in contemplation to address the crown on the subject, it is not unprecedented to permit enquiries of this kind, as tending to explain the conduct and clear the characters of public men.' It is, nevertheless, optional with those to whom such questions are put, whether they will answer them or

not."

6

We have already pointed out the reasons which would justify a sovereign in dismissing his ministers : ° likewise the circumstances that would naturally lead to the resignation or reconstruction of a ministry. now remains to explain the nature and extent of the control over the ministers of the crown which is constitutionally exercised by the House of Commons.

It

As it is essential that the ministers of the crown should possess the confidence of the popular chamber, so the loss of that confidence will necessitate their retirement from office. The withdrawal of the confidence of the House of Commons from a ministry may be ministers shown either (1) by a direct vote of want of confidence, or of censure for certain specified acts or omissions; or (2) by the rejection of some legislative measure proposed by ministers, the acceptance of which by Parlia

When

must

resign.

ment they have declared to be of vital importance; or, on the other hand, by the determination of Parliament to enact a particular law contrary to the advice and consent of the administration.

want of

The direct vote of want of confidence, as a procedure Vote of for the removal of an obnoxious or an incapable ministry, is of comparatively recent origin; and for its present dence. accepted form, whereby the House declares that it has no confidence in an administration, without assigning their reasons for such declaration, no precedent exists anterior to 1841.

Something very like a vote of want of confidence was introduced in grand committee, on November 23, 1692, but it was not followed up, and 'came to nothing.'r Lord John Russell animadverted upon the hesitancy of Pitt to propose a vote of want of confidence in the Addington ministry, in 1803-4, lest it should be deemed an encroachment upon the royal prerogative, notwithstanding his conviction of the weakness and incompetence of ministers.3

The assault upon Sir Robert Walpole, which was made simultaneously in both Houses of Parliament, on February 13, 1741, and which, though unsuccessful at the time, was the proximate cause of his downfall, was substantially intended as a vote of want of confidence. The motion was for an address to the king, praying him to remove Sir Robert Walpole, the then chief minister, 'from his presence and counsels for ever,' without alleging any particular offence he had committed. For this omission, Sir Robert declared the motion to be 'one of the greatest encroachments that was ever made upon the prerogative of the crown.' The motion was negatived by a large majority, but a few months afterwards a general election took place, and defeats in the new House of Commons speedily compelled Sir Robert Walpole to resign his office.t

In 1779 a proposed amendment to the address in the House of Lords, setting forth the necessity for 'new councils and new counsellors,' was characterised by Lord Chancellor Thurlow as an outrage on the constitution,' on the ground that it was an attempt to condemn ministers 'by a side-wind, without notice, and without evidence.' Lord Camden very properly rebuked the chancellor for this speech; but the amendment was negatived."

For a vindication of the propriety of this method, see Massey, Hist. of Eng. v. 3, p. 235.

Parl. Hist. v. 5, pp. 733, 770.

Russell's Life of Fox, v. 3,p. 310.
Parl. Hist. v. 11, pp. 1047-1388.
Ewald, Life of Walpole, chaps. 11,12.
" Parl. Hist. v. 20, pp. 1087, 1092.

Votes of want of

confidence.

Modern

form of such votes.

In 1782, after repeated attempts in the House of Commons to overthrow Lord North's administration, a direct vote of want of confidence was moved. It was embodied in a long resolution, enumer ating causes of dissatisfaction connected with the loss of the American colonies, and the continuance of the war, for which the House 'can have no further confidence' in the existing ministry. This motion was negatived by a majority of nine only, in a full House. Whereupon notice was given, that it would be followed by another, to the same effect, unless the government retired. But on the day appointed for the intended motion, Lord North announced his resignation. This was the first example of a change of ministry as the immediate result of a vote of the House of Commons.▾

When the great attack was made upon the newly appointed ministry of Mr. Pitt, in 1784, several resolutions, partaking more or less of the nature of votes of want of confidence, were passed by the House of Commons. But the minister gallantly struggled on against a powerful majority until the time was ripe for an appeal to the country, when he obtained a reversal of the verdict against him by a dissolution of Parliament. The adverse motions against Mr. Pitt embodied, in every instance, reasons of complaint, although Mr. Fox, who then led the opposition, declared that 'it had always been his opinion that the House could advise the removal of ministers without giving their reasons.

Thenceforward, we find repeated instances, in both Houses of Parliament, of motions to express a want of confidence in the ministry, none of which were successful-all of them, however, setting forth, with more or less detail, the grounds of objection and the causes of complaint -until we come to the memorable case of 1841.

On May 27, 1841, after Lord Melbourne's ministry had sustained numerous defeats in both Houses of Parliament, and particularly a defeat in the House of Commons upon the important question of the sugar duties, and had declared their intention of proceeding with the public business, Sir Robert Peel moved to resolve that 'Her Majesty's ministers do not sufficiently possess the confidence of the

▾ Parl. Hist. v. 22, pp. 1170, 1214: Mahon, Hist. of Eng. v. 7, p. 208. Parl. Hist. v. 24, pp. 239-733, and especially p. 697.

For example, in 1797, in both Houses, see Adolphus, Hist. of Eng. v. 6, pp. 591-594. In the Lords:March 22, 1798, Parl. Hist. v. 33, p. 1317; June 2, 1803, Ib. v. 36, p. 1571. In the Commons:-December 4, 1800, Ib. v. 35, p. 710; June 3, 1803, Ib. v. 36, p. 1535. See motions, in both Houses, to consider the state

of the nation (either in Come of the whole House or on an address to the crown), which, up to 1831, was the method of impugning conduct of ministers; Hansard's Digest, 18031830, pp. 363, 600; Hans. D. n.s. 1826, v. 15, p. 841, but which of late years has seldom been resorted to; Ib. v. 106, p. 1147. See Ld. Loughborough's sarcastic definition of such motions; Cushing, Lex Parliamentaria, 2041.