uses, which was a favourite project of the Whigs at this time, and the immediate occasion of the change of ministry, was afterwards abandoned, and the resolution of the House of Commons, upon which Sir Robert Peel resigned, remained a dead letter on the Commons' Journals." In The failure of the efforts of William IV. in favour of the Tory party was complete, and it affords an instructive illustration of the effects of the Reform Act, in diminishing the ascendant influence of the crown. George III.'s time the dismissal of a ministry by the king, and the transfer of his confidence to their opponents-followed by an appeal to the country—would certainly have secured a majority for the new ministers. Such had been the effect of the dissolutions in 1784 and 1807. But the failure of this attempt to convert Parliament from one policy to another by royal prerogative authority and influence proved that, with the abolition of the nomination boroughs, and the extension of the franchise, the House of Commons had emancipated itself from the control of the crown; and that the opinion of the people must now be changed before ministers can reckon upon a conversion of the Parliament.'P Waning of the crown. Reign of Queen Victoria Lord Melbourne's ministry continued in office during the rest of the king's reign, and on the accession of our present gracious queen, in 1837, she confirmed them in their places, and gave them her entire confidence. In 1839, however, they were obliged to resign office, on account of their inability to carry on the government with success. Sir Robert Peel was then charged with the formation of a new ministry. Acting upon the advice of Lord Melbourne, her Majesty was induced, on this occasion, to insist upon retaining the ladies of her household, notwithstanding the change of ministry. This See post, p. 200. » May, v. 1, p. 127. See also Ed. Rev. v. 115, p. 211. decision of the Queen compelled Sir Robert Peel to relinquish the task entrusted to him, and the Melbourne administration were reinstated. But being defeated upon a vote of want of confidence in the House of Commons in 1841 they again resigned, when Sir R. Peel was sent for, and fully empowered to make such alterations as he thought fit in the composition of the royal household. More particulars in regard to this transaction will be found in a subsequent chapter." 'From this time,' says May, ' no question has arisen concerning the exercise of the prerogatives or influence of the crown which calls for notice. Both have been exercised wisely, justly, and in the true spirit of the constitution. Ministers enjoying the confidence of Parliament have never claimed in vain the confidence of the crown. Their measures have not been thwarted by secret influence and irresponsible advice. Their policy has been directed by Parliament and public opinion, and not by the will of the sovereign, or the intrigues of the court. Vast as is the power of the crown, it has been exercised through the present reign by the advice of responsible ministers, in a constitutional manner, and for legitimate objects. It has been held in trust, as it were, for the benefit of the people. Hence it has ceased to excite either the jealousy of rival parties or popular discontents.'s See post, p. 290. May, Const. Hist. v. 1, p. 135. For the origin of the terms Conservative' (which has been erroneously attributed to Sir R. Peel) and 'Liberal,' by which the rival political parties are now designated, instead of being styled Whigs and Tories, as of yore, see Speeches, &c., of Edward, Lord Lytton, edited by his son, v. 1, p. lxxix. The year constitu tional epoch. CHAPTER IV. ANNALS OF THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF ENGLAND, FROM 1782 TO 1873. It is proposed in the following chapter to give a brief account of the circumstances attending the appointment, resignation, or dismissal, of the several administrations of England, from 1782 to 1873; together with a mention of the various constitutional questions, illustrative of ministerial responsibility, which arose during their term of office, and which have not been specially noticed in other parts of this treatise. In selecting the year 1782 as our starting-point, we 1782 a do so because it is the date of an important epoch in constitutional history. It marks the first introduction of the practice, since universally recognised, of the simultaneous change of the whole ministry upon the enforced retirement of the cabinet. Prior to that time, there had been frequent instances of partial alterations in the cabinet, with a view to conciliate the favour of Parliament, but it was not until the downfall of Lord North's administration, in 1782, in consequence of its having lost the confidence of the House of Commons, that the necessity for a complete change in the ministry, under such circumstances, was freely acknowledged. Moreover, previous to this occasion, there had been but one example-that of Sir Robert Walpole, in 1741 -of the retirement of a prime minister on account of a defeat in the House of Commons." 1. Rockingham Administration.-March 1782. d In March 1782, upon the resignation of the North administration, the Marquis of Rockingham was appointed First Lord of the Treasury. The history of the formation of this ministry is remarkable. The North administration, after a successful career of twelve years, came to an end in consequence of its growing unpopularity in the House of Commons. The House had passed resolutions denouncing the great and increasing influence of the crown, and in favour of peace with the revolted American colonies. George III. was strongly averse to the recognition of American independence; and Lord North, though personally inclined towards conciliation, is said to have remained in office to carry into effect the personal wishes of the sovereign, which he preferred to the welfare of the state.' But the House of Commons had become impatient at the continuance of the war, and it was evident that the war ministry were losing ground. A direct vote of want of confidence had indeed been negatived by a bare majority of nine; but Lord Surrey had given notice of a similar motion, for March 20, 1782, which it was anticipated would pass. With some difficulty Lord North induced the king to forestall this defeat, by accepting the resignation of ministers; an event which was communicated to the House on the day the debate was to have begun. The king made several attempts to induce the Whig party to take office upon his own terms, but without success. He was at length obliged to authorise Lord Rockingham to form an administration upon the basis of the independence of America, and a curtailment of the influence of the crown. The list of the new cabinet, before being See Lewis, Adminis. p. 25. Fitzmaurice, Life of Ld. Shelburne, v. 3, p. 129. d Russell's Mem. of Fox, v. 1, p. 247. e See post, v. 2. 1782. 1782. submitted to the king, received the approval of the leading Whigs. The king refused to see his new premier until he was actually in office, and conducted the ministerial negotiations through Lord Shelburne, who was appointed Home Secretary, and at whose suggestion Mr. Dunning (with the title of Lord Ashburton) was added to the cabinet, without previous communication with Lord Rockingham. The contest in which the North administration had been overthrown was a struggle of the king's personal will, backed by the influence of the crown, against the independent portion of the House of Commons. When the result was known, Fox openly treated it as a victory of the Commons over the king; declaring in his place in Parliament that the new ministers must remember that they owed their situations to the House. The king, though fully sensible that he had sustained defeat, was prudent enough to tolerate for a time a ministry composed for the most part of men whom he regarded as his personal enemies. The only member of the late ministry who remained in office was Lord Chancellor Thurlow, who retained his place at the express desire of the king, and who showed his independence of his new colleagues by opposing them in council. But the new ministry were very short-lived; within four months of their appointment they were dissolved, by the death, on July 1, of the premier, Lord Rockingham." 2. Shelburne Administration.-July 1782. Two days afterwards, Mr. Secretary Fox advised the king to appoint some member of the Rockingham party as premier; but his Majesty refused, and gave the appointment to Lord Shelburne, whereupon Fox, Burke, |