On March 5, 1869, there was a debate in the House of Commons concerning the appointment of a military officer to be permanent under-secretary for Ireland, which was made by the Disraeli ministry on the eve of their quitting office. Admitting that as a general rule a retiring ministry were justified in filling up vacancies, Mr. Gladstone objected to the exercise of that right in a case of such special importance and responsibility, and hinted that it might be found expedient hereafter to fill up this office in a different way. The unexpected decease of this officer, a few weeks afterwards, enabled the government to replace him by a civilian." The Disraeli ministry, at the same time, appointed the Earl of Mayo to be governor-general of India; but this appointment, though severely criticised by the Liberal press, was unquestioned in Parlia ment." In 1835, Sir R. Peel, shortly before his resignation of office, appointed Lord Heytesbury to succeed Lord William Bentinck in the governor-generalship of India. But at the first meeting of the new (Melbourne) cabinet it was agreed to advise the king to revoke this appointment, and it was accordingly vacated.w Proceed ings when Parlia During the interval between the resignation of a ministry and the appointment of their successors in office ministers -an interval which has varied in duration, within the are out of past century, from one to thirty-seven days and like- ment. wise during the period which must necessarily elapse from the issue of new writs in the House of Commons on behalf of the incoming ministers and their re-election, whatever may be the abstract right of Parliament to continue its deliberations," it is not customary, by modern usage, for any important political question to be discussed in either House of Parliament." It is usual to adjourn, from time to time, over these periods, meeting only in order to dispose of business which is absolutely essential, and beyond dispute.' If "Hans. D. v. 194, p. 757; v. 196, p. 1085. Hunter, Life of Ld. Mayo, v. i. p. 105. Ed. Rev. v. 133, p. 318. Haydn, Book of Dignities, p. 266. * See ante, vol. i. pp. 253-258. y See Ib. pp. 149, 169, 175. Mir. of Parl. Nov. 1830, pp. 272, 337; Hans. D. v. 114, p. 889. a Hans. D. v. 119, p. 914; Ib. v. 136, p. 1309; Ib. v. 148, pp. 18701892; Ib. v. 184, pp. 692, 697, 722. During a ministerial interregnum in 1866, the royal assent was given by commission to several Bills. Ib. p. 694. With regard to the sitting of select committees at such a time, Interviews between the old and new 6 the Houses continue sitting, as a general rule, no motion on which a difference of opinion would be likely to arise' should be submitted." d But this rule admits of one exception. While it would not be regular to address the crown to ask for the production of papers whilst the sovereign was without any responsible advisers, and no answer could be given to any such address until the sovereign had a responsible minister through whom to act; yet, if a ministerial interregnum should continue for an unreasonable length of time, it would be proper for the House of Commons to interpose, and by an address to the crown, endeavour to put an end to so injurious and inconvenient a delay. Such addresses have been passed, or proposed to be passed, upon several occasions, and they have usually elicited from the sovereign a response in harmony with the constitutional opinions therein expressed. Upon the occurrence of a change of ministry, it is customary for the outgoing ministers to explain to their successors, at personal interviews, the state of the ministers public business in their respective departments." And it is a familiar practice of outgoing ministers to leave behind them a memorandum on this subject or on that, and stating that, on account of the position of the Government, they think it expedient to take no step in the matter, but they leave it to be dealt with by their successors.h Lord Melbourne's unselfish regard for the public interest, and genuine affection for the Queen,' upon relinquishing the premiership, in 1841, 'thoughtfully communicated to his successful rival (Sir R. Peel) all the suggestions which he thought likely to facilitate the communications of the new government with her Majesty.'1 They are also bound in honour to communicate to the proper officers any private information upon public affairs that may have been forwarded to them upon the presumption that they were still in office i of official All public officers are required to leave behind them, Custody when they retire from office, whatever public documents documay have come into their possession during their term ments. of office, in order that a complete history of all public transactions may be preserved in the archives of the department. Private letters, however, do not come within this rule, even though they may exclusively relate to affairs of state. But no ex-minister is at liberty to quote in Parliament from any document which he may have received while in office, unless it has first been made public by being laid before Parliament.* sition office. When an opposition comes into office, it is not The oppoexpected to abandon its own engagements and adopt when asthose of its antagonists." And though, as we have seen, suming it is customary for in-coming ministers to ratify and give effect to the intentions of their predecessors in the distribution of personal honours and rewards," yet they are under no such obligation in any matter which involves a question of public policy. If they disapprove of contemplated arrangements, agreed upon by their predecessors, but not fully completed when the change of ministry took place, they are justified in peremptorily overruling such arrangements; and they may properly avail themselves of any technicality to refrain from the formal completion of a grant, appointment, or commission, issuable by the crown, for which they are not willing to become responsible." Etiquette of new ministry towards the old. Upon the same principle in 1868 the new Gladstone ministry 'considered themselves bound by a sort of official etiquette and necessity to carry out the acts of the late government,' in the matter of certain postal contracts; lest 'the government in future negotiations with commercial companies should be placed in a disadvantageous position by the introduction of such an element of uncertainty into their dealings as that, on account of a change of government, engagements entered into in perfect good faith by both parties, should be liable to be set aside. It was afterwards stated, in reference to another transaction, which required a vote in Supply, that if one government did not accept the bargains made by another, within certain limits, people and public bodies would refuse to deal with any government.' P It is indeed, most unusual, if not, in modern times, unprecedented, for a new ministry, in a new Parliament, to attempt to pass reactionary measures, unless they had the strongest evidence that the national policy had undergone an entire change. But, at all events, a new ministry should faithfully adhere to whatever policy has been accepted by the crown and the country in relation to separate interests to other countries, notwithstanding that they may have individually expressed opinions adverse to the same when in opposition. For on acceding to office, a statesman is constitutionally bound to do his utmost to maintain that unity of policy which is essential to the conduct of public affairs by a great nation." It is also necessary to maintain the principle that whilst the government is administered by rival parties succeeding one another-the government of the Queen is continuous, and is conducted without being unduly biassed by political hostility." 426; Hans. D. v. 169, p. 777; Ih. v. • Hans. D. v. 194, pp. 1288, 1306. Mr. Gladstone, Hans. D. v. 220, plaints ters, for duct in Since the establishment of parliamentary govern- Com ment, it has never been the usage in England for any against ministry, upon acceding to office, to make use of its ex-minis power and influence in Parliament to bring under in- misconvestigation the acts of its predecessors. Those acts office. were open to parliamentary criticism when they were performed, and being uncondemned at the time must be presumed to have been sanctioned. It is, of course, competent to Parliament to investigate particular matters of complaint against individual ex-ministers, whenever facts are brought to light which call for enquiry.* But the power of a government should never be employed against their predecessors in office to obtain a censure upon their past policy for mere party considerations, or to promote an enquiry into the policy and justice of public measures which were undertaken by them whilst they held the reins of government," except with a view to the reform of administrative defects or the correction of abuses." Our sketch of the origin, development, and present state of the governmental system of England, and of its relation to the crown on the one side, and to Parliament on the other, is now complete. the past. In reviewing the successive phases through which Review of the constitution has passed, from the Norman Conquest to our own day, we observe that they exhibit, in turn, the supremacy of political power in the crown, under prerogative government; in the higher classes, from the period of the Revolution to the Reform Bill of 1832; and in the aristocratical and middle classes combined, from that epoch until now. By the enlargement of the |