with his own views, differed somewhat as to the proper 1846. grounds for dissolving Parliament, should it be necessary to take that step-he circulated both papers amongst the cabinet ministers. Sir R. Peel's suggestions met with unanimous approval. On June 25, owing to a concerted union between the Whig and Protectionist parties for the purpose of displacing the government, the Irish Coercion Bill was rejected, on its second reading, by a majority of 73. Next day the ministry resigned." In communicating the fact of his retirement from office to the House of Commons, Sir R. Peel stated that, had he failed to carry his measures of commercial policy, he would have advised the crown to dissolve Parliament, but, having succeeded in passing them, he could not consent to advise a dissolution for the mere continuance of his own administration in office, unless he could reasonably anticipate that it would insure him the support of a powerful party, united to him by a general concurrence of views on all great questions, a result which, at this juncture, he did not consider probable. Moreover, he thought that the country, after its recent excitement, stood in need of repose. 19. Lord John Russell's First Administration.-1846. On July 6, 1846, Lord John Russell was sworn in as First Lord of the Treasury. His cabinet consisted of the then unusual number of 16 persons. He took office with a majority of 100, sitting opposite to him; and carried on the government with a minority during the remainder of the Parliament, which completed its seventh session in July 1847; but he did it for the advantage of the country, and with the full approbation and moral ▾ Peel's Mem. v. 2, pp. 298-308. In the following year the new ministry were themselves compelled, by the state of Ireland, to introduce a Coercion Bill, which, with the 1850. support of a majority in Parliament,'* including Sir R. Peel and his friends." In February 1850, he narrowly escaped defeat upon the question of agricultural distress, being sustained by a majority of 21 only, in a House of 530 members. On this occasion a change of ministry was anticipated, but did not occur. On June 17, 1850, a resolution, proposed by Lord Stanley in the House of Lords, condemnatory of the foreign policy of ministers, in relation. to the affairs of Greece, was carried, by a majority of 37. This was met by a counter-resolution, proposed by Mr. Roebuck, in the Commons, approving of the whole foreign policy of government, which was carried, on June 28, by a majority of 46. However, on February 13, 1851, upon another Protectionist motion, proposed by Mr. Disraeli, they obtained a bare majority of 11, in a House of 548 members, and, on the 20th, were defeated, upon a motion of Mr. Locke King, on a question of the extension of the franchise. On February 22, Lord John Russell resigned. But after ineffectual attempts on the part of Lords Stanley and Aberdeen, and of Lord John Russell, in connection with Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham, to form a ministry, her Majesty sent for the Duke of Wellington, to take counsel from him in regard to this political emergency; and 'paused for a while before she again commenced the task of forming an administration.' At length, upon the advice of the Duke of Wellington, the Whig ministry were recalled to office. On December 22 following, the ministry were weakened by the loss of Lord Palmerston, under circumstances which will be specially noticed in another chapter." Explanations were given to the House of Commons, of this event, by Lord John Russell, * Mr. Disraeli, Hans. D. v. 191, p. 1704; and see p. 1729. y Earl Russell's Recollections, p. 243. Maitin's Pr. Consort, v. 2, pp. 344-354. Hans. D. v. 114, pp. 1033, in the debate upon the Address, at the commencement 1852. of the session, on February 3, 1852. A few days afterwards, the ministry were defeated upon an amendment, proposed by Lord Palmerston, to the motion for leave. to bring in a Bill to regulate the local militia.' The amendment consisted in the substitution of the word 'general' for local.' It was carried, on February 20, by 136 votes to 125. On February 23, their resignation was announced to both Houses. Her Majesty had offered them the alternative of a dissolution of Parliament, but the cabinet were unanimous in the opinion that it was not advisable to have recourse thereto. 20. Lord Derby's First Administration.-Feb. 1852. d Instead of sending for Lord Palmerston, as might 1852. have been anticipated, her Majesty commissioned the Earl of Derby to form a ministry. He was very reluctant to take office; but nevertheless succeeded in the undertaking, and on February 27 the new premier explained the intended policy of his cabinet in the House of Lords. This administration was confessedly in a minority, in the House of Commons, upon the great party questions. But they struggled through the session in which they had taken office, with the intention (which, for constitutional reasons, was hinted, rather than expressed) of dissolving Parliament in the ensuing autumn, and of then shaping their course of policy on the question of Free Trade, and the Corn Laws, according to the general sentiment of the country, as it might be expressed in the new Parliament. But they were not permitted to take this course without encountering strenuous opposition. On March 15, Lord John Russell See Ashley, Life of Palmerston, v. 1, p. 333. Martin's Pr. Consort, v. 2, p. 433. ib. v. 2, p. 441. Hans. D. v. 150, p. 1076. e 4 See Hans. D. v. 214, p. 1939. Hans. D. v. 1852. warmly contended that the proposed delay in dissolving Parliament, and the attempt to conduct public business by Lord Derby's ministry, whilst in an admitted minority in the House of Commons, was unconstitutional and unprecedented. He was followed, at greater length, and to the same effect, by Sir James Graham. Afterwards, Mr. Gladstone and Lord Palmerston urged that, constitutionally, the new ministry were bound to give a distinct assurance that, as soon as the necessary business before Parliament could be despatched, the crown should be advised to appeal to the country." In the House of Lords, similar views were expressed by the Duke of Newcastle." Lord Derby, in reply, said that he did not rely on the conduct of Mr. Pitt, in 1784, as a precedent, not regarding it as a very analogous case; but he defended his position by referring to the course adopted by Sir R. Peel, in 1835, when he was in a minority, in the House of Commons, upon his assumption of the reins of government, and failed to obtain a majority upon a dissolution of Parliament. He sustained several serious defeats in the new House, yet he would not resign, saying, I hold there is nothing unconstitutional, in the post I fill, and in the fulfilment of my duty, to persevere in the discharge of those duties to which my sovereign has called me, in defiance of the majority that is against me upon any abstract question, and in defiance of any declaration on the part of the House of Commons that I ought to bring forward a particular question, and settle it in a particular manner. I will perform my duty until the House shall, by its vote, refuse its sanction to some measure of importance which I think necessary to submit to its consideration.' Upon this constitutional doctrine, laid down in 1835, Lord Derby declared that he was prepared to abide in 1852. He could not consent to f Hans. D. v. 119, p. 1067. Ib. pp. 1090, 1105, 1111. h Ib. p. 1267. i resign, as he and his party had not sought office, or 1852. brought about his accession to it; neither would he give any distinct pledge as to the time when he would advise a dissolution. He expressed, however, an anxious desire that an appeal to the country should be made at the earliest period possible, consistently with the public welfare. Furthermore, he said that he thought the new Parliament should be assembled before the close of the coming autumn, to pronounce its definitive and final decision.' With this explanation, the leading statesmen in the House of Lords declared themselves to be satisfied. A similar announcement was made in the House of Commons, on the same day, by Mr. Disraeli, in reply to an enquiry by Lord John Russell. On March 22, Lord John Russell professed himself content with these explanations, and expressed his willingness to aid the government in completing the necessary business without delay. The prorogation took place on July 1, and the dissolution of Parliament upon the same day. At the close of the session, Lord Derby 'gratefully acknowledged' that his ministry had met 'with no factious opposition,' and had encountered nothing but a fair, legitimate, and constitutional opposition in the other House of Parliament.' The new Parliament assembled on November 4. The returns to the new House of Commons left the balance of parties very much as before, with no decisive working majority on either side. But they indicated the opinion of the country to be in favour of a continuance of the new commercial policy, and opposed to any return to the principle of Protection. Accordingly, on November 11, in the debate upon the Address, in answer to the speech from the throne, Lord Derby stated that he should bow to the decision of the country, thus unmis Ld. Derby's speech, Hans. D. v. 119, p. 1274. k |