1859. inconvenience to the public service, recommend the sovereign to dissolve Parliament, and carry that recommendation into effect, unless the House of Commons makes itself a party to the transaction, accelerates its proceedings, and concurs in the temporary expedients which are necessary in order to place the public business in a position in which a dissolution would not be attended with inconvenience.' For it would have been perfectly constitutional for the House, under existing circumstances, to refuse to be a party to the abrupt and premature termination of the session, and to interpose their advice between that tendered to her Majesty by her responsible ministers and the act of dissolution, by an address to the crown, praying that it would neither dissolve nor prorogue Parliament until the House had had the opportunity of considering another Reform Bill, to be presented by the Government;' or 'to address the crown to dismiss the present ministers." His lordship, however, would not advise the House to adopt either of these courses, but thought it far better to 'accept the challenge of her Majesty's ministers, and appeal to the sense of the people' without delay. Some further discussion ensued as to the issue upon which the government intended to go to the hustings. The Opposition persisted in asserting that the issue for the country to decide was the propriety of their Reform policy; but the Home Secretary (Mr. Sotheran-Estcourt) maintained that the real question at issue for the country to consider was whether the government should be carried on by the present ministers, or whether power should be transferred to other hands.'i prorogation of Parliament took place on April 19, 1859, and the dissolution on the 23rd. The new Parliament assembled on May 31. On the motion for an Address Hans. D. v. 153, p. 1415. And see Sir G. Grey's remarks on this point, p. 1419. 16. p. 1429. This was in fact the The issue which the Derby Government put to the people, and which was decided against them. See Ib. v. 154, pp. 111, 147. in answer to the speech from the throne, an amendment 1859. was proposed, in the House of Commons, on June 7, representing that the present advisers of her Majesty did not possess the confidence of this House, or of the country. After three nights' debate, the amendment was carried, by a majority of 13. The division upon this question was the largest on record. There were 638 members present out of 654.* At the division on April 27, 1866, on the second reading of the Reform Bill, there were present 636 members, including the Tellers and the Speaker. The increased attention of members to their parliamentary duties within the present century, may be inferred from the fact that, at a great party division, in 1804, when 493 members were present, including the Speaker, it was said to have been the fullest House that was ever known,' which was not strictly correct, as on one occasion, in 1742, 508 were present. Mr. Speaker Abbot refers to a division.on April 24, 1812, when the ayes were 300 and the noes 215, as 'probably the largest number that ever attended on any division.' m The largest division in the House of Lords is said to have included about 310 Peers." The ministry thereupon immediately resigned office; but their resignation was not formally announced to both Houses until June 17.o At this juncture the queen first commissioned Earl Granville to form a ministry, but as soon as that nobleman found that a better and a stronger arrangement might be made, he at once requested her Majesty to absolve him from the task. In fact, before the new Parliament met, and in anticipation of the speedy downfall of the Derby ministry, the two rival chiefs of the Whig party, Lords John Russell and Palmerston, had come to an agreement that whichever of the two was charged with the formation of a government, should receive the co-operation of the other. Her Majesty knew nothing of this un Hans. D. v. 154, p. 416. Ann. Reg. 1859. Chronicle, p. 81. m 377. Life of Earl Minto, v. 3, p. 348. n Hans. D. v. 188, p. 654. Yonge, 1859. 1865. derstanding, and had supposed either of these noblemen would have been willing to serve under Lord Granville. Lord Palmerston at once agreed to do so. But Lord John Russell was not so tractable. This led to Lord Granville's failure. Whereupon the queen transferred her commission to Lord Palmerston.P 24. Lord Palmerston's Second Administration.—1859. On June 17, the Houses were informed that Lord Palmerston had been empowered to form an administration. On June 22, the new writs were ordered; and an adjournment took place until the 30th, on which day the new premier made his ministerial statement to the House of Commons. This ministry lasted for upwards of six years, and was finally broken up by the death of Palmerston, which occurred on October 18, 1865, being within two days of the completion of his eighty-first year. During this period his lordship's conduct of public affairs in the lead of the House of Commons was admirable, and wholly free from a certain brusque and dictatorial manner which characterised his former leadership.a 25. Earl Russell's Second Administration.—1865. A few days after the decease of the veteran Lord Palmerston, Earl Russell, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the most experienced and prominent member of the administration, who had already once before filled the office of premier, was called upon by the queen to assume that position. The lead of the House of Commons was assigned to Mr. Gladstone, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A few minor alterations were made in the personnel of the government, and two new members introduced therein, namely, Mr. Forster, Hans. D. v. 154, p. 457. Ashley, Martin's Pr. Consort, v. 4, pp. 443, 452. a Ib. v. 2, pp. 147, 203. as Under-Secretary of the Colonies, and Mr. Göschen, first as Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and, after a few weeks, as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, with a seat in the cabinet." Otherwise, the political character of the new ministry resembled that of Lord Palmerston, although in the loss of that gifted and popular statesman it failed to acquire the same amount of confidence and respect from the various parties into which the House of Commons was divided. Three months before Lord Palmerston's death, a general election had taken place, and the returns to the new Parliament appeared to have somewhat added to the strength of ministers, and to have given them a majority of about seventy over their political opponents. A Reform Bill was promised in the speech from the 1866. throne, at the opening of Parliament. Some delay occurred in the production of this measure, and when at length it was brought in, it consisted of a part only of the government scheme, in the shape of a Bill for the reduction of the franchise. It was stated that the necessary complement, of a Bill for the re-distribution of seats, would not be introduced until the following session. This arrangement produced great dissatisfaction in the House, and ministers were at length obliged to bring in their Seats Bill without further delay, in order that the complete scheme of Reform might be discussed in committee of the whole House. After several minor discomfitures on the question of Reform, ministers were defeated on May 28, on a motion, which was carried against them, for an instruction to the committee on the Bill to provide therein for the better prevention of bribery and corruption at elections." They were again defeated, in committee, on June 18, by a resolution to amend the 5th clause (concerning the occupation franchise for borough voters) by striking out * Ann. Reg. 1865, p. 159. • Hans. D. v. 183, p. 1344. 1866. the words clear yearly,' with a view to the insertion of ' rateable' instead thereof. Regarding this decision as equivalent to a vote of want of confidence, ministers immediately tendered their resignations. The queen was, at the time, at Balmoral Castle, in Scotland, a circumstance which occasioned some delay. But, on learning the intentions of ministers, her Majesty expressed her desire that they would not persist in retiring from office in the existing state of public affairs, especially upon the Continent-where a war between Austria, Italy, and Prussia was on the eve of taking place—and declared her opinion that a mere defeat upon a question of detail, which was capable of adjustment, did not call for such serious consequences. In deference to this opinion the matter remained in abeyance until the queen, on her return from Scotland, should be able to confer personally with her ministers. On June 26, the premier and the chancellor of the exchequer had an audience with the queen, at Windsor Castle, at which her Majesty was informed that ministers persevered in tendering their resignations." They were accordingly accepted; and full explanations of the grounds of their retirement from office were given, on that day, to both Houses of Parliament. Earl Russell's statement, in the House of Lords, led to speeches from Earls Derby, Granville, and Grey, upon the ministerial crisis. Mr. Gladstone's statement, in the House of Commons, elicited no remarks from any other member. 26. Earl of Derby's Third Administration.-1866. On June 28, the House of Commons was informed that the Earl of Derby had received the queen's com Hans. D. v. 184, p. 639. "A vote of confidence was about to be moved in the House of Commons, with a view to re-establish the ministry, when the mover received a letter from Earl Russell announcing his resignation. May, Const. Hist. ed. 1871, v. 3, p. 433. See Earl Russell's Recoll. p. 259. |