of the Resolution, as well as for making Amendments. No one can doubt for a moment the importance of the issue raised by the Motion of the hon. Member; but I am still in some perplexity as to what that issue is. But while there is no doubt as to the importance of the subject, there will be much difference of opinion as to the expediency of its being made at all, either in the form proposed yesterday or in that which it has assumed to-day. Our Constitution contains a great variety of forces, not necessarily opposing forces, but which may occasionally find them

tion. When I first read the Resolution of the hon. Member for Swansea, it did not appear to me to be particularly well framed, or particularly clear in the proposition which it was designed to enunciate. But having, as I thought, mastered the meaning of that Resolution, I was yesterday certainly astonished when my hon. Friend declared that it had taken him entirely by surprise to find that the Resolution of which he had given Notice was in any way supposed to be a Vote of Censure upon Her Majesty. It is extremely possible, and it has been contended by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), that tech-selves in opposition to each other, and nically the Motion was not a Vote of Censure upon Her Majesty, because Her Majesty cannot be held responsible for any action whatever; and that, if it was a Vote of Censure at all, it would have been a censure upon the Advisers of the Crown. But certainly the impression conveyed by the terms of the Resolution imported censure upon certain proceedings of Her Majesty in her personal capacity, which, by some evil advice, she had been induced to take; and, therefore, I cannot understand how it can have so much astonished my hon. Friend to learn that it was regarded as a direct Vote of Censure upon the Queen. My perplexity was still further increased when I heard him say that he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), and when I found the effect of that Amendment to be not a very considerable alteration from the terms of the original Resolution. Sir, that Resolution has now become a sort of vague Vote of Censure upon the Government in respect of several matters which have already been under the consideration of the House; and that which yesterday was the principal allegation of the Resolution-namely, that there had been personal interference on the part of the Sovereign-has now been remitted to a secondary and comparatively insignificant position. I cannot think that these proceedings are at all convenient to the House, because I think that when matters of this importance are dealt with by the House, they ought to be dealt with after due consideration, and after the bearings of the Resolution affecting them have been fully considered, and that time should be given to the House for fully considering the bearings

which are kept in balance by a variety of checks, not the result of any preconceived theories, but of the practice and experience of generations, a great many of which are the outcome of prolonged, severe, and hazardous struggles. The relations of the two Houses of Parliament to each other, the relations of Parliament and the Executive Government to the Crown, all these points have been settled in a manner which it would be very easy to show is not theoretically perfect, but yet, after various adjustments, have been found in practice to work sufficiently well. In my opinion, it is not expedient, without adequate cause, that Parliament should be excited to examine the mechanism of the Constitution, and to raise, by calling attention to them, difficulties in the friction which would not otherwise be found out. Reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard, in his speech to-night, to that prolonged contest which took place between George III. and the political Parties in Parliament—a contest which was waged in support, on the one hand, of the claim of personal government, and, on the other, in support of the Privileges of Parliament. That was one of the most prolonged and one of the most severe struggles through which our Constitution has passed. It would be, perhaps, rash to say that no similar struggle can ever, under any circumstances, be waged again between the different powers of the Constitution; but I think it is safe to say that that contest can never be waged again under the same or under similar circumstances. That was at the time of nomination boroughs and of other constituencies which were extremely small, when the Crown was in possession of almost

unlimited patronage. It was possible | (Mr. Gladstone), these issues have been for the Sovereign, as George III. did, decided in every instance against us by to dictate his own policy to his Ministers, this House. Although we are not conto dismiss his Ministry when he objected tent to consider that decision as a final to their policy, and sometimes to defeat one, there is but one tribunal to which his own Ministers in Parliament by it is possible for us to make an appeal. means of his own personal influence. It is competent for us, and we shall, I But the circumstances under which that hope, appeal from the judgment of the action of the Sovereign was exercised House to the judgment of the constituare entirely gone, the position is entirely encies whenever we have the opporchanged; and no conflict between the tunity. But, on the other hand, I must Crown and Parliament can ever be waged agree with my right hon. Friend that at the present time in circumstances there is no practical object to be attained even remotely similar to those to which in raising again collectively in this my hon. Friend referred. But even at House charges which have been heard in the time when the conflicts between the detail, and which, so far as this House Crown and the political Parties were was competent to decide them, have been constant, I think it will be found, upon decided against us. But with these examination, that no Parliamentary issues which we have raised, and which action was ever taken, except on grounds my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) and I most distinctly stated, or except on have together been parties to raising, my grounds the existence of which was per- hon. Friend has mixed up the question fectly notorious. Now, Sir, have any which has excited-I do not say unnecessuch grounds for Parliamentary action sarily excited-considerable attention in been alleged in the present case, or is the mind of the country generally, the there any such notorious interposition of question which goes, for want of a the Sovereign in matters of policy as better name, by the name of the revival would warrant the absence of specific of personal government. What instatements in the Motion which has been stances have been brought forward by made? In my opinion, my hon. Friends my hon. Friend in support of the allegawho moved and seconded this Resolution tion which was conveyed in the Resoluhave confused two issues which are tion, as it stood on the Paper yesterday, altogether and totally distinct. They that there has been a direct interposition have confused the charges which have on the part of the Crown in matters of been brought from this side of the House Indian and foreign policy, or in support from time to time against Her Majesty's of the insinuation contained in the Government of an abuse of the powers Resolution moved to-day, that there of the Crown with charges of a different, has been a supposed personal interposiof an altogether different description. tion of the Sovereign? I listened careWe, on this side of the House, have fully to the speeches; but I must say thought it necessary, and I have myself that in the historical narrative of recent been a party to it on every occasion, to events which was given by my hon. challenge the exercise of the Prerogative Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. of the Crown by Her Majesty's present Dillwyn), and in the historical disquisiAdvisers in the case of the removal of tion of my hon. Friend the Member for the Indian troops; again, in the case of Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), I was only Anglo-Turkish Convention; and, again, able to detect two allegations brought in the proceedings, without the know- forward in support of this supposed ledge of Parliament, which led to the personal interposition. One of them Afghan War. We have contended that has been very fully dealt with, and I in every one of these cases the Prerogative think, on the whole, very satisfactorily and the powers of the Crown have been dealt with, by the right hon. Gentleman abused by Her Majesty's Government. opposite, in the speech which he has I think that we took a right course in just made. I am not here to defend the raising every one of those issues in detail answer given in the first instance when and separately. I think we should have the question was first put. I think, on failed in our duty to the House and the further consideration, it should have occountry if we had acted otherwise. But, curred to the Government that it was not as has been pointed out by my right altogether right that they should say that hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich they had no knowledge of correspondence The Marquess of Hartington

{MAY 13, 1879}

Crown.-Resolution.

318

between the Sovereign and the Viceroy, | we can, either in the interests of our own and should appear to treat the question Privileges or in the interests of the Crown as a matter which could have no concern itself, afford to abate one jot of our Coneither for them or for Parliament. I stitutional jealousy, or one jot of the think, if the full explanation given to- doctrine that for every act of the Sovenight had been given at the time, we reign some Adviser of the Crown must might probably have avoided a great be held responsible. It is useless to deal of misapprehension. I wish the deny that there does exist in the country right hon. Gentleman had entered as fully into an explanation of what has changes in our Constitutional relations. some vague uneasiness as to impending taken place in the matter of the alleged The right hon. Gentleman asked us just correspondence with Sir Bartle Frere now whether anybody desired that the and with Lady Frere. with the facts before us, that I see any- thought that he spoke with almost too I cannot say, Constitution should be changed, and I thing which need necessarily excite Con- great an alacrity of his willingness to stitutional jealousy in that correspond- enter into discussion of any propositions ence. We have not seen the letter which might be brought forward. But, which, it is said, has been written to Sir, there is no doubt that there is some, Lady Frere. written, I think it is extremely pro- the possibility of impending changes. I If a letter has been though, I grant, a vague uneasiness as to bable that it is due to those causes will not, at this hour, go into what I bewhich have been referred to by the lieve to be the causes of that uneasiness right hon. Gentleman, and that it is a-the subject, if discussed here, should letter of sympathy, not at all expressing an opinion of Her Majesty, or of Her Majesty's Government, upon any of the difficult questions to be settled in the Colony. I must say I think if such a letter has been written that great blame is due, not to Her Majesty for having written it-for I have doubt, if we knew its contents, that it no would do her nothing but honour-but great blame is due to someone in Africa for the use to which that letter has been put; and that that letter, whatever its contents, should be allowed to be spoken of by the Colonial Press as a letter which had stimulated the opinions of political combatants in the Colony is, I think, a use of that letter extremely to be deprecated, and extremely wrong to have allowed. But, Sir, I cannot say, in either of these cases to which reference has been made, do I see the slightest ground for affirming that Her Majesty has departed from the Constitutional practice which she has almost throughout the whole of her Reign observed. While I entirely agree that no sufficient proof has been brought forward of the alleged personal exercise of Prerogative by Her Majesty, I cannot sit down without stating my conviction that if stronger proof had been forthcoming, and any exercise of Prerogative had been proved, it would have been matter calling for very grave and very serious notice. I do not think that

be fully discussed, and it is useless to go into it at this hour. But, Sir, there is no doubt that men of great ability, in periodicals of much political influence, have put forward doctrines respecting the relations of the Executive to Parliament and the Crown which are altogether generally held on both sides of this contrary to the doctrines which have been House. Those doctrines, so put forward, have been met as I think they ought to have been met. They have been very fully discussed in the Press and out-ofdoors. I do not think it is incumbent upon this House to discuss abstract theories about our Constitution, or about changes in our Constitution, however influential may be the exponents of such theories, or however much ability may be shown in supporting them. House is only called upon, to act, and can only act with effect, to This put such theories into action. Some atin my opinion, tempt has been made to-night to show that a commencement has already been made in the policy which I have indicated. In my opinion, my hon. Friend has been led away by false and unnecessary alarm. I think the House, by agreeing to the Resolution which he has moved, and by showing unnecessary anxiety and want of confidence in its own position and in its own powers, would rather impair than strengthen the Privileges which it is the duty of this House to guard, and would, at the

Motion made, and Question put, | ment were quite prepared to entertain "That the Debate be now adjourned." (Sir Robert Peel.)

The House divided:-Ayes 46; Noes 347: Majority 301.-(Div. List, No. 91.) Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part

of the Question."

on

any proposition which might be started concerning it. This being the case, he thought that it would become a very serious question if this matter of the out-of-doors, for a feeling was growing Prerogative of the Crown were raised up that something was going which the people did not understand. MAJOR NOLAN said, that his hon. It was all very well to lay stress Friend the Member for County Mayo upon what were called letters of con(Mr. O'Connor Power), who had seconded dolence from Her Majesty to Lady the Motion for the adjournment of the Frere. No one in that House quesdebate, represented a county which con- tioned the character or the qualities of tained a very large number of inhabitants. the Sovereign, or her right to express As he (Major Nolan) represented a neigh- her feelings of condolence to Lady bouring county with a similar popu- Frere in the position in which she had lation, he ventured again to urge been placed. But there was something the necessity for adjourning the de-behind-and it was a question of conbate. In the first place, this was a most important question; and, secondly, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) wished to address the House upon it. The right hon. Baronet had only given way to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had insisted upon speaking when he For these reasons, and as the right hon. Baronet had been precluded up to that time from taking any part in the debate, he thought it should be adjourned. The right hon. Baronet was one of those Members who were listened to by the House with the greatest attention, and the fact of his being precluded from speaking constituted a reasonable cause for the adjournment of the debate. He therefore begged to move the adjournment of the

rose.

House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."(Major Nolan.)

SIR ROBERT PEEL said, that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Kolan) having referred to him, he felt bound to offer some observations upon this subject, which he considered to be one of absolute importance to the country. The House had heard apologies from the Secretary of State, and expressions of bewilderment from the noble Lord who led a section of the Liberal Party in that House, with regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). Nothing definite had, however, been arrived at, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that Her Majesty's Govern

VOL. CCXLVI. [THIRD SERIES.]

fidence in the policy which this country pursued. He had no hesitation in saying that the policy followed in South Africa at this moment was one which would meet with the reprobation of the country. The Government had admitted that the war was both unjust and unnecessary. The question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Swansea was one which had been more than once previously raised in this country, and had met its reprobation. It was not met with sneers when Mr. Dunning raised it in 1780, but it was carried by a majority; and, again, in 1820, when Mr. Brougham raised the question, it was not met in the way which it had now been. Mr. Fox, speaking early in the century of the Prerogatives of the Crown, said

"You talk about bringing proof of that which is an intangible thing; but, nevertheless, is a thing which may work invisible, but incalculable, mischief to this country."

That was precisely what many people in the country and in that House felt at the present moment. There was, undoubtedly, an uneasy feeling abroadit was impossible to deny it-and he considered that, for the purpose of freely and fully discussing the matter, they ought more fully to debate the question raised by the hon. Member for Swansea. The speech that he had heard that night from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had fairly astonished him. He would have given anything to have risen after that right hon. Gentleman. When he recalled to his recollection what the right hon. Gentleman said in the coun

M