William IV. and form Bill. able by the passing of the Reform Bill; a measure to 1830-1837. which the king was at first opposed, but which was m ultimately carried through Parliament with a high the Rehand by his own personal exertions. Impressed with the necessity for Reform, to save the country from revolution, and to avert the perils anticipated by the defeat of the Bill in the House of Lords, the ministry extorted from the king a pledge to create a sufficient number of peers to turn the scale in favour of Reform; but a dread of the consequences of such an arbitrary proceeding induced the king, with the knowledge and consent of his ministers, to cause a circular letter to be addressed to the Opposition peers, urging upon them to drop all further resistance to the Bill, so that it might pass without delay, and as nearly as possible without alteration. This direct interference with the independent deliberations of the House of Lords, however objectionable it may appear, was not unprecedented under the peculiar circumstances of a conflict between the two Houses. At any rate, it was a less obvious evil than the creation of additional peers, and it had the desired effect. the Re The Reform Bill became law, through the active Effects of interposition of the crown, and with the reluctant form Bill. assent of the House of Lords. It has effected an important revolution in the English political system. Professedly based upon a careful adherence to the acknowledged principles of the constitution, by which the prerogatives of the crown, the authority of both Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people, are equally secured,' it has contributed, in its consequences, to increase the power of the House of Commons, not only by lessening the aristocratic Roebuck's Hist. of the Whig Ministry, v. 2, pp. 331, 334. See post, p. 191. For a fuller discussion of this point, see post, v. 2. Increasingly difficult to control the House of Commons. influence of the proprietors of close boroughs, but also by diminishing the strength of the crown in that assembly. The disfranchisement of constituencies, in England alone, which formerly returned 143 members, the distribution of seats to various localities hitherto unrepresented, and the general extension of the franchise, have been the means of emancipating a large proportion of voters from the direct influence of the landed gentry, and of introducing into the House of Commons a body of independent members, who cannot be relied upon as the staunch supporters of any political party, but who think and act for themselves. This has brought about a silent but material change in the relations between Parliament and the ministers of the crown. The stable administrations of former days have passed away, and no government can now expect to continue in office by dint of mere party strength. The House of Commons has become more difficult to control, from the lack of a sufficient number of members upon whose support an existing ministry could generally depend, and from the necessity of conciliating the goodwill of divers important and independent interests, which are now represented therein. Nevertheless, as we have already remarked," the influence of the great governing families of England,' though materially reduced, is still powerful over many constituencies. And while the representation of the people has been made more direct and efficient, rank and hereditary property have been permitted to retain a fair proportion of legitimate influence in that chamber which has become the source and centre of political authority." To this we owe it that the complex machinery of parliamentary government has continued in successful operation, and that e See ante. f See Ed. Rev. v. 95, p. 225. h See May, Const. Hist. v. 1, p. 355; v. 2, p. 84. the House of Commons has been hitherto preserved from the evil effects of democratic ascendency. Two years after the passing of the Reform Bill, the prerogatives of the crown were again called into activity, in a manner which seemed to revive the political history of 1784. Lord Grey's government had lost the confidence of the king. The retirement of several members of the cabinet on the question of the appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Church of Ireland excited the apprehension of the king as to the safety of the Irish Church, and, without consulting his ministers, he gave public expression to his alarm, in replying to an address of the prelates and clergy of Ireland. The ministry, enfeebled by the loss of their colleagues, by disunion and other embarrassments, soon afterwards resigned; notwithstanding that they continued to command a large majority in the House of Commons. They were succeeded by Lord Melbourne's administration, which differed little in material politics and parliament ary strength. But this administration was distasteful to the king, who had meantime become a convert to the political opinions of the Opposition.'i 6 of his liam IV Taking advantage of the removal of Lord Althorp Dismissal from the leadership of the House of Commons, and from ministers the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, owing to his bi accession to a peerage by the death of his father, the in 1834. king suddenly dismissed his ministers, and consulted the Duke of Wellington upon the formation of a government from the Tory party, who were in a decided minority in the House of Commons. The propriety of this act has been questioned by May, for the reason that all the usual grounds for dismissing a ministry were wanting. There was no immediate difference of opinion between them and the king upon any measure or 'See post, p. 286. k J May, Const. Hist. v. 1, p. 120. See post, p. 194. Ministry of Sir R. Peel, in 1834. question of public policy; there was no disunion among themselves, nor were there any indications that they had lost the confidence of Parliament. But the accidental removal of a single minister-not necessarily even from the government, but only from one House of Parliament to the other-was made the occasion for dismissing the entire administration. It is true that the king viewed with apprehension the policy of his ministers in regard to the Irish Church; but his assent was not then required to any specific measure of which he disapproved, nor was this the ground assigned for their dismissal. The right of the king to dismiss his ministers was unquestionable; but constitutional usage has prescribed certain conditions under which this right should be exercised. It should be exercised solely in the interests of the state, and on grounds which can be justified to Parliament-to whom, as well as to the king, the ministers are responsible. But here it was not directly alleged that the ministers had lost the confidence of the king: and so little could it be affirmed that they had lost the confidence of Parliament that an immediate dissolution was counselled by the new administration. The act of the king bore too much the impress of his personal will and too little of those reasons of state policy by which it should have been prompted; but its impolicy was so signal as to throw into the shade its unconstitutional character.'1 The Duke of Wellington advised that the formation of the new administration should be entrusted to Sir Robert Peel; and as that statesman was abroad at the time, he himself accepted the office of First Lord of the Treasury, together with the seals of office as Secretary of State, which, there being no other secretary, constituted his grace Secretary for the Home, Foreign, and Colonial Departments. May, Const. Hist. v. 1, pp. 122, 123. And see Trevelyan, Life of Macaulay, v. 2, p. 54. Upon the arrival of Sir R. Peel, he immediately waited upon the king, and accepted the proffered charge. And so completely had the theory of ministerial responsibility been now established that, though Sir R. Peel was out of the realm when the late ministers were dismissed though he could have had no cognisance of the causes which induced the king to dismiss them-though the Duke of Wellington had been invested with the sole government of the country without his knowledge, he yet boldly avowed that, by accepting office after these events, he became constitutionally responsible for them all, as if he had himself advised them." He did not attempt, like the ministers of 1807, to absolve himself from censure for the acts of the crown, and at the same time to denounce the criticism of Parliament, as an arraignment of the personal conduct of the king, but manfully accepted the full responsibility which had devolved upon him.'" A dissolution of Parliament was at once determined upon; its result proved, upon the whole, unfavourable to Sir Robert Peel, for, although his own supporters were largely increased, yet a majority against his ministry was returned. For a while he endeavoured, with great tact and consummate ability, to carry on the government, but he was confronted at every turn by a hostile and enraged majority in the House of Commons, and compelled to succumb. After several previous discomfitures he was defeated on a resolution affirming that no measure on the subject of tithes in Ireland could be satisfactory that did not provide for the appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Irish Church. He then Replaced resigned, and Lord Melbourne's administration, with whig some alterations, was reinstated. But it is remarkable ministry. that the appropriation of Irish Church property to other by the old m Hans. D. 3rd ser. v. 26, pp. 216, 223. n May, v. 1, p. 125. post, p. 196. And see |