immediately after it has taken place. Until Ministers have come to an understanding as to the advice they will tender to their Sovereign upon any given occasion it would be premature for them to communicate with the Crown thereon. The Premier himself is under confer with the Sovereign upon any matter no obligation, either of duty or of courtesy, to which is still under the consideration of the Cabinet." the Royal pledge with respect to the Ca- | to the Premier; if not beforehand, at any rate tholic claims, the reponsibility of which rested upon the Ministry. There was another illustration of great interest in this matter, and that was the action taken at the close of the Great War by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. At the close of the Great War the then Czar proposed a "holy alliance" between the victor Kings-himself, the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the The House would remember what took Prince Regent, and he wrote an auto-place when the present Government graph letter to the Prince, inviting him to sign the necessary Treaty. In what way did the then Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister deal with that matter? Lord Castlereagh wrote thus to Lord Liverpool were last in Office. In the year 1867 the present Prime Minister threw upon the Crown, instead of taking upon himself, the responsibility of deciding whether or not there should be a Dissolution after a hostile vote of that House. But as to the necessity of collectivity "Upon the whole this is what may be called a of action, he would refer to the action I am desired by the Emperor taken by Lord Chatham in 1810. Lord of Austria, through Metternich, to express his earnest hope that the Prince will not refuse Chatham, who was a Member of the My own Cabinet as well as a Peer, came back opinion very much concurs with that of His from his expedition to the Scheldt, Imperial Majesty, and in weighing difficulties drew up a Memorandum of his proon both sides I think no person will blame the ceedings, and, going to a Levée, gave Prince for not refusing assent himself to a pro-it to the King. It remained in the scrape. himself to this overture. . position so made to him. But I think the Prince must take it upon himself, and sign it, without the intervention of his Ministers, as an autographic avowal of sentiment between him and the Sovereigns his allies, tending to preserve the tranquillity of Europe. To decline doing so might produce very unpleasant consequences." Lord Liverpool, in his reply, said "It is quite impossible to advise the Prince to sign the act of accession which has been transmitted to him. Such a step would be inconsistent with all the forms and principles of our government, and would subject those who advised it to a very serious responsibility. Nothing is more clear than that the King or Regent of Great Britain can be a party to no act of State personally; he can only be a party to it through the instrumentality of others who are responsible for it." Well, these were illustrations of the principles he wished to lay down in confirmation of what he had said as to the necessity of action originating with the Ministry and not with the Crown. He would next touch upon the necessity of collective action on the part of Ministers. The action of an individual Minister was not sufficient to substantiate every nominal action of the Crown. The advice given to the Crown must be that of the Ministry collectively. Upon that point, he would quote the opinion of an eminent authority on Constitutional Law"All correspondence between the Sovereign and a subordinate Minister should be submitted Mr. Courtney hands of His Majesty some time. Lord Chatham desired to make an alteration in it, received it back, made the alteration, and again handed it to the King, who, after a time, handed it to the Secretary of State. What was the result of Lord Chatham's proceeding? A Motion was made in the House of Commons by Mr. Whitbread, censuring the transaction, and the House approved the Motion by a large majority, after a discussion, which lasted, the record stated, till half-past 6 in the morning. Mr. Canning, who was not then in Office, spoke, and supported the Motion of Censure, although it was urged that Chatham, as a Peer, might demand an audience of the King, and that, as a responsible Minister of the Crown, he was entitled to act upon his responsibility. The House of Commons, however, held that the document should have reached the King through the collective Cabinet, and not as the result of individual dealing between the Crown and an individual Minister. The case which occurred under Lord Liverpool's Administration in 1825 was, perhaps, even more remarkable. The Cabinet having drawn up a Memorandum on the subject of the action to be taken in reference to the Spanish Colonies, which had revolted, the King endeavoured to obtain from the Members of the Cabinet separately their opinions on the question. But the Cabinet, in reply, humbly requested the King's permission to give their answer generally and collectively, although they admitted that among themselves differences of opinion existed. The manner in which Lord Palmerston's expression of his individual opinion on the coup d'etat of 1851 was regarded might also be taken as a case in point. Throughout the whole range of English politics, in fact, one principle prevailed -namely, that there should be no sheltering of the action of Ministers under the name of the Crown, and that the action of Ministers should be collective and not individual. That the authority of this principle had been infringed of recent years his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had produced abundant evidence to show. His case might, perhaps, be lacking in the precision which was insisted upon in a Court of Law; but that was inevitable from the nature of the case, for they were dealing with action which was impalpable, half concealed, and half revealed. The very manner in which Ministers had treated Questions which had been addressed to them on this subject-the apparent assumption on their part that the principles of the Constitution were only to be regarded as musty, fusty phrases-was in itself a sufficient justification for the Motion now before the House. There were several instances in which similar Motions had been brought forward, and he would ask the House to consider how this question of evidence had been considered. When Mr. Fox's Indian Bill was before the House of Lords, a Memorandum, to the effect that the King would regard as his friends those who voted against the Bill, was taken about and shown to different Peers. Thereupon a rumour arose, and a Motion was made in the House of Commons by Mr. Baker in the following terms: "That it is now necessary to declare that to report any opinion, or pretended opinion, of His Majesty upon any Bill or other proceeding" (and, of course, any line of policy, Indian or Colonial)"depending in either House of Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of its Members, is a high crime and misdemeanour, derogatory to the Crown, a breach of the fundamental privileges of Parliament, and subversive of the Constitution of the country." And how did Mr. Pitt meet that Motion? He asked VOL. CCXLVI. [THIRD SERIES.] "Was it founded on any positive facts, either the mighty grievance complained of supposed to proved or stated? No.... Upon what was depend? Not on any misdemeanour substantiated to the satisfaction of the House by any sort of evidence whatever, but on the vague surmises or lie of the day." Mr. Pitt allowed himself to use that language, although he knew it was perfectly true that the Memorandum had been circulated; but such a line of defence Mr. Fox treated with scorn, as one unbecoming a Minister, and disrespectful to the House. In all such cases, in fact, the supporters of the Motion held that it was not necessary to substantiate their case with the same minuteness as a prosecutor in a Court of Law. Had no breaches of the principles of the Constitution been committed? He was afraid that, in perfect innocence, a great many had been committed from time to time. He saw before him at that moment a noble Lord who was very busily engaged in what was an undoubted breach of the Constitution. They would all be sorry if anything serious should happen to that noble Lord; but, without knowing it, he was exposing himself to the very gravest censure. [Laughter.] Somebody laughed. But he would read an extract from Sir Erskine May's work, which would perhaps explain what he had said Erskine,were systematically violated by the "The privileges of Parliament," said Sir King (George III). In order to guard against the arbitrary interference of the Crown in its proceedings, Parliament had established, for centuries, the Constitutional doctrine that the King should not hear or give credit to reports of its debates. . . . yet during the proceedings of the Commons against Wilkes, the King obtained from Mr. Grenville the most minute and circumstantial reports." It was a true and sound Constitutional principle that the Crown should know only of the collective action of Parliament-that it should know nothing of the action of individual Members of that House to guide it in the distribution of its favours. Of course, it might not be true that the noble Lord he referred to took notes of the proceedings of that House for transmission elsewhere; but such was the rumour. Now, about the breaches of Constitutional principles. Was not the conclusion of the AngloTurkish Convention, without any previous communication being made to Parliament, a stretching of the Prerogative and a derogation of the power and K authority of that House? In fact, Par- | fore it was effected. It had been pleaded liament was committed to a certain that there was a parallelism between course before it could say aye or no. the conduct of our agents abroad and And could not the same be said of the that of the agents of the Czar in Central bringing of the Indian troops to Malta? Asia, by whom the Czar himself was When asked a Question in reference to overreached; but there were no Constialleged lengthy communications between tutional relations between the Czar and the Crown and the Viceroy of India, the his people, and such a parallelism was a Chancellor of the Exchequer said there confession that in our case the Constitumight have been private communications tion had been abandoned. When a -such things had happened before, and question was raised as to the bringing might happen again; but he showed no over of the Indian troops, the noble anxiety whatever as to whether the Con- Lord, now the President of the Board of stitution had been trenched upon; he Trade, and also the Under Secretary of treated it as a matter of no importance, State for India, argued that if there had and in doing so he was supported by the been any suggestion of what was incheers of Members about him. If Lord tended there would have been interminChatham, being a Cabinet Minister, was able debates, and every difficulty would not permitted to have individual corre- have been thrown in the way of the spondence with the Crown, would it Ministry; and that argument simply have been permitted at that time for the meant that the checks of the ConstituViceroy of Ireland to have had particular tion and the control of that House must and confidential communications with be got rid of in order that the Governthe Crown upon the progress of affairs ment might be free to work their own in that country? Would not such con- will. These facts were sufficient of themduct à fortiori have been open to the selves to justify the alarm that was felt, censure passed upon that of Lord Chat- especially when they were accentuated ham? Ought not a similar censure to by the conduct of the Prime Minister in attach to the conduct of the Viceroy of 1867. Instead of submitting to the India now? At least, it was surely the Crown a distinct resolution of the Cabiduty of the Ministers of the Crown, if net, he put two courses before the Crown, they were jealous for the maintenance of offering to adopt that which was prethe Constitution, to have ascertained ferred, and thus threw upon the Crown from the Viceroy something more as to the responsibility of an important dethe nature of the correspondence with cision. The Prime Minister did not the Sovereign. It was admitted that understand Constitutional principles as a communication was made to Lord they had been understood by a series of Chelmsford upon the authority of a statesmen. There was published in 1835, single Member of the Cabinet, and it in a letter to a noble and learned Lord, was confessed that in that instance the a Vindication of the English Constitution, collective action and responsibility of by Disraeli the younger, which was well the Cabinet were abandoned. The an- worthy of being reprinted and carefully nexation of the Transvaal was made by studied, for it had disappeared from a stretch of the Prerogative absolutely public notice, and he had been able to unprecedented. A Commission was given obtain it only from the library of the to Sir Theophilus Shepstone from the Cambridge University. It showed the Sovereign, who was then in the High- opinions then entertained by the present lands; it was countersigned by Lord Prime Minister on the relations between Carnarvon; and under that Commission the Crown, the Ministry, and Parliathe Transvaal was annexed, without any ment. Speaking of the advent of Wilwarning, or even suggestion, to Parlia- liam III. to the Throne, the author ment that such a thing would be said— done. But it was done, and this country had been saddled with a weight to an "Here, then (under William III.), commences the age when the influence of the Court extent of which they now did not rapidly declined, when Ministers were virtually know. Contrast that with the annexa-appointed by the Parliament instead of the tion of Fiji, which was pressed upon that House by the worthy Member for Lambeth (Mr. Alderman M'Arthur), was discussed, and almost approved be Mr. Courtney Sovereign, and when, by the institution of the Cabinet, the scheme and policy of the Adminimittee, and the King was, in fact, excluded stration devolved upon a Parliamentary Comfrom his own Council. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) apparently regretted that change; but the whole question was whether it was to be regretted or approved, and it was generally approved; but, in 1835, the Prime Minister evidently thought it was a change to be regretted. In the pamphlet he further said that George I., unsupported by the mass of the people, and ignorant of our language, was entirely dependent upon the Whig Peers, who resolved to compensate themselves by establishing the Cabinet on its present basis. It was added vernment of the country-namely, the destruction of the collective authority of the Cabinet and the elevation of the authority of a particular Minister and the augmentation of the power of the Crown. That was the idea of the present Prime Minister. If these were called "musty phrases," he might quote later writings to show that what he then said had been consistently manifested since. When the question came to be considered by the historian, the anomaly must surely present itself how, in the Reign of the Queen who had ruled for "It is curious to trace the Kingly office from 40 years with universal satisfaction to the era of the Plantagenets, when the characters her subjects, regarding most carefully of a Royal Council and a Legislative Chamber and attentively every Constitutional were so blended together in the House of Lords principle, an alarm was suddenly raised that the Monarch always presided over his Par-that the guarantees of the Constitution liament, to the moment when the Sovereign under the Brunswicks was virtually excluded from his own Council."-[P. 170.] Again, an opinion was hinted, though, perhaps, it was not completely stated. Coming down to George III., the author said "It was the clear sense and the strong spirit of his able grandson-George III.-that emancipated this country from the government of 'the great families." The King put himself at the head of the nation, and, encouraged by the example of a popular Monarch in George III., and a democratic Minister in Mr. Pitt, the nation elevated to power the Tory or National Party of England, under whose comprehensive and consistent, vigorous and strictly democratic system, this island has become"[P. 173.] [Cheers.] If he was to understand that cheer as an approval given to George III., in emancipating himself from the control of his Cabinet, he recognized in it another ground for the Motion of his hon. Friend. There was another extract, which, with the permission of the House, he would read, which was conclusive as to the view of the Prime Minister of the present situation. This was written after Lord Melbourne was dismissed by William IV., and, of course, the question arose what was the view of the Prime Minister with reference to it. The quotation was this "Let us hope that our Gracious Sovereign may take warning from the first of his house that ruled these realms, and follow the example of George III. rather than George I." The present Prime Minister was then young and only entering into public life, but he had formed his opinion deliberately; he had consistently maintained it, and to a large extent had endeavoured to carry it out in the go were being sapped, and the authority of no danger the same authority might, Notice of an Amendment to the Motion again be used in a way they did not of the hon. Member for Swansea. By like? That was a precedent to which giving Notice of an Amendment a Memhe freely referred, in order to show the ber is supposed to secure the opportunity real danger with which they were now of immediately following the Seconder of threatened-the danger of a Minister, the Motion. I have to ask you, Sir, disregarding Constitutional checks, mis- whether it is in accordance with the using the name and authority of the Rules and Orders of the House, as it Crown to carry out his individual policy. certainly is not in accordance with the It had been said by the hon. Member custom and usages of it, for any Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newde- to interpose between the Mover of a gate) that he was an old Whig. Well, Motion and the Mover of an Amendhe also was an old Whig; and it was on ment of which Notice has been given? the ground of affection for the principle If it is the Rule and Order of the House, of the Constitution, as settled from the all our balloting and all our giving beginning of the present century, of Notices will be simply a farce, because maintaining the authority of a collective if that priority is gone once it is gone Cabinet, and a collective Cabinet only, for ever. and restricting the action of the Crown in the direction at which he had pointed, that he should support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea. He did so, because he was anxious to guard against the realization in the future of what the present Prime Minister had described as the policy of the Tory Party, but what he should rather describe as the triumph of unchecked Democracy, reflecting the prejudices and the passions as well as the moderation and reason of the nation, and brought into power with a majority which would assuredly not always belong to the Conservative Party. He begged to second the Resolution of his hon. Friend. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That to prevent the growing abuse by Her Majesty's Ministers of the prerogative and influence of the Crown, and consequent augmentation of the power of the Government in enabling them, under cover of the supposed personal interposition of the Sovereign, to withdraw from the cognizance and control of this House matters relating to policy and expenditure properly within the scope of its powers and privileges, it is necessary that the mode and limits of the action of the prerega tive should be more strictly observed."—(Mr. Dillwyn.) MR. SPEAKER having read the The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, STONE. LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I rise to Order. [Mr. GLADSTONE resumed his seat.] About six weeks ago, I gave Mr. Courtney MR. SPEAKER: There is no Order of the House on the subject. When several hon. Members rise to address the Chair, the first who catches the eye of the Speaker is called upon; and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich caught my eye first, I call upon him to proceed. MR. GLADSTONE rose to speak. LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I rise, Sir, to Order. You told me, Sir, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to address the House after the Mover and Seconder had concluded. ["Chair, Chair!" "Order, order!"] I am going to ask a Question as to Order. I arranged with you, Sir-[" Order, order!"] MR. CHAPLIN: Sir, I rise to Order. LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I have risen to Order. MR. SPEAKER: Is the noble Lord speaking to a point of Order? If so, the noble Lord is entitled to be heard. LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Yes, Sir, I am. I arranged with you, Sir, that I should rise at the same time with the Chancellor of the Exchequer-▬ MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is now referring to communications between himself and myself before this debate came on. It is not usual to take that course. At the same time, if the noble Lord, acting on his own discretion, thinks right to do so, I have no objection. LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I am much obliged to you, Sir. I agreed with you that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer should rise to speak, I would sit down. I did not wish to stand in the way of his reply, although I understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to squelch the debate. The |