King's ministers case, if we may suppose that such could occur, wherein the crown had selected unfit or improper persons as its advisers. In all ordinary circumstances, the ministers chosen by the sovereign are entitled to receive from Parliament, if not an implicit confidence,' at the least a fair trial. a fair trial.' This has been the established rule and practice of the constitution, as the following cases will show :- entitled to Sovereign's When Mr. Pitt was appointed prime minister by George III., in 1783, in the face of a hostile majority in the House of Commons, he braved the fierce opposition with which he was encountered, and disregarded the factious obstructions of his foes, until he was in a right to nominate position to dissolve Parliament and appeal to the people.s Advertministers. ing, nearly twenty years afterwards, to the conduct of the House of Commons upon this occasion, Mr. Pitt declared that amidst all the violence which characterised the proceedings of the House at the time, the 'general principle' of the sole right of the king to nominate his ministers had never been attempted to be denied in the abstract.'h The hostility of the House to Mr. Pitt arose, according to Sir Robert Peel, from a suspicion that he owed his appointment to unconstitutional motives; that is to say, to the exercise of secret influence, by means of which it was notorious that the previous administration had been overthrown. But Mr. Pitt took his stand upon the principle that it was irregular for the House to endeavour to control the prerogative of the crown in the choice of its ministers, by denouncing them without waiting to see their acts.i In 1801, after the retirement of Mr. Pitt from office, and the appointment of Mr. Addington to the premiership, an arrangement which was not satisfactory to Parliament, Mr. Pitt expressly claimed for the king the sole right of nominating his ministers,' and contended that the House had no right to form any resolution till their conduct came to be judged of by the acts of their administration.' He asserted, moreover, that the new ministers were entitled, at the outset, to 'a constitutional confidence'; in other words, ‘that unless some good reason were assigned to the contrary, the House was bound, by the best principles of policy, as well as by the true spirit of the constitution, to wait to see the conduct of the ministers of the crown before they should withhold their confidence.' The Ld. Selkirk's speech, Parl. D. v. 9, p. 377. And see Adolphus, Hist. of Eng. v. 3, p. 466, n. f Sir R. Peel's Mem. v. 2, p. 67. Hans. D. v. 191, p. 1728. See ante, p. 144. h Parl. Hist. v. 35, p. 962. House of Commons acquiesced in this reasoning, and refrained from any attempt at disturbing the new ministry. The In 1807, after the dismissal by George III. of the Grenville administration, and the appointment of the Duke of Portland's ministry, debates arose in both Houses of Parliament upon this event, and upon the circumstances which had given rise to it. ex-ministers had a majority in both Houses. Their friends accordingly endeavoured to embarrass the new government by proposing resolutions expressive of regret at the change in the royal councils. But Parliament, while they were inclined to approve of the conduct of the late ministry in the matter which had occasioned their dismissal, refused to concur in resolutions of censure, or to take any steps which would appear like an attempt to limit the exercise of the prerogative by refusing to the new ministers of the crown a fair trial. Accordingly the resolutions were superseded in the Lords by a motion of adjournment, and in the Commons by a resolution to pass on to the orders of the day.k During the debate in the House of Commons, Sir William Grant took occasion to show that the attempt of the late ministers to convert Parliament into a court of appeal against the king's decision was unwarrantable and unprecedented.1 In 1812, the newly appointed ministry of Lord Liverpool was vehemently assailed in the House of Commons, and motions were submitted to express regret that men had not been chosen who were more entitled to the support of Parliament, and to the confidence of the country. But after much debate it became apparent that the sense of the House was opposed to any proceedings that might appear like an attempt to dictate to the crown in regard to the choice of its advisers. The leader of the government, moreover, claimed for the new ministry' the constitutional support of Parliament till their actions should show them to be unworthy of it.' The several motions of censure were then put and negatived.m In 1834 Sir Robert Peel, by desire of William IV., undertook the formation of a ministry, although his party was in a decided minority in the House of Commons. A dissolution of Parliament ensued, but this did not add very materially to the strength of the new administration. Ministers sustained very severe defeats in the new House; nevertheless, Sir R. Peel refused to 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, &c. I will perform * See ante, p. 158. 1 Parl. D. v. 9, p. 474, See also the proceedings in the House of Com mons after the death of Mr. Perceval: ante, p. 164. m See ante, pp. 172, 173. Delays in forming a new ministry. Address to thereon. 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.'n He accordingly persisted in the attempt to maintain his position, in the face of repeated defeats in the Commons for nearly two months; when, being convinced of the evil of permitting the House of Commons to exhibit itself to the country free from any control on the part of the government, and believing that in conformity with the constitution, a government ought not to persist in carrying on public affairs, after a fair trial, against the decided opinion of a majority of the House of Commons,' he resigned, and a new ministry, whose views were in accordance with the opinions of the Commons, was appointed. Earl Derby in 1852, in 1858, and in 1866, assumed the reins of government, by command of the Queen, with an adverse majority in the House of Commons. Upon each occasion the new ministry were treated with great forbearance by the House, and were permitted to remain in office without molestation or annoyance until they had developed their policy, and had shown themselves to be decidedly at issue with the House of Commons upon some great public question.P The Conservative ministry, appointed in July 1866, continued in office for nearly two years and a half, notwithstanding that their party was in a minority in the House of Commons.¶ The interval between the resignation or dismissal of a ministry, and the appointment of their successors, varies according to the exigency of the case, and the the crown difficulties that may attend the formation of another cabinet. During this interval, should it appear expedient to either House to tender advice to the sovereign in regard to the formation of a ministry-whether it be to urge the appointment of a strong and efficient administration, or even to indicate the political character of a ministry that would prove acceptable to Parliament-it is perfectly constitutional to do so. In 1783, thirty-seven days (February 24 to April 2) elapsed between the resignation of the Shelburne ministry and the appointment of a Coalition ministry, under the Duke of Portland, On March 24, the Commons passed an address to the king, praying him n Mir. of Parl. 1835, p. 135. Hans. D. v. 119, p. 1278. • See ante, p. 199. P 1b. pp. 221, 228, 237. to form a strong and united administration. His Majesty sent a Precegracious reply to this address through Earl Ludlow, expressing his dents. earnest desire to do everything in his power to comply with the wishes of his faithful Commons. On March 31, a motion was made for the adoption of another address, representing the urgent necessity which existed for the immediate appointment of an efficient and responsible administration; but after some debate, the motion, being regarded as premature, was withdrawn.t Upon the break-up of the Perceval administration, owing to the assassination of the premier, on May 11, 1812, four weeks elapsed before a new ministry, under the Earl of Liverpool, was appointed. On May 21, a motion was made in the House of Commons for an address to the Prince Regent, praying him to form a strong and efficient administration. It being known that the former colleagues of Mr. Perceval were desirous of remaining in office, and were in communication with the prince upon the subject, the motion was resisted by the friends of the late government, on the ground that it was an attempt to interfere with the crown in the choice of its servants, which was not justified by existing circumstances. The motion was nevertheless agreed to by a small majority, and the mover and seconder of the address were ordered to present it to his Royal Highness. The mover reported on the following day that the prince had promised that the address should receive his immediate and serious consideration. Viewing this address as equivalent to a declaration of their own inefficiency, the remaining members of the administration immediately placed their offices at the disposal of the Prince Regent. Negotiations were then commenced with the Whig party, but they proved unsuccessful; and the old ministry was reinstated in office, under the premiership of the Earl of Liverpool." During this interval, on May 30, and again on June 5, notice was given in the House of Commons for a further address to the Prince Regent, beseeching him to proceed without delay to appoint a strong ministry, in which the House could confide. But the House being informed that negotiations were in active progress, with every prospect of a successful termination, the motions were not made. A fortnight elapsed between the resignation of Lord Liverpool, on March 27, 1827, and the appointment of the Canning administration. Meanwhile, after eight days had elapsed, notice was given, for April 6th, of an address to the crown, to be pleased to appoint a ministry who were unanimous on questions of vital importance to the empire. But when the day arrived for bringing on this motion, it was withdrawn upon an intimation that the formation of a ministry T He was Comptroller of the Household. * Com. Jour. March 26, 1783. VOL. I. t Ib. March 31, 1783. " See ante, pp. 161-172. Y tries. was about to take place. Four days afterwards the Canning ministry was appointed. Precedents Upon the resignation of the Grey ministry, on May 8, 1832, of proceconsequent upon their defeat upon the Reform Bill in the House of dure in deLords, the House of Commons passed an address to the king on the lays in forming 10th inst., expressing their deep regret at the retirement of ministers, new minis- and imploring his Majesty to call to his councils such persons only as will carry into effect, unimpaired in all its essential provisions,' the measure of Reform to which the House had recently agreed. The address was ordered to be presented by members of the House who were of the Privy Council. Four days having elapsed without the reception by the House of any reply to their address, the Speaker was questioned upon the subject. He could only state that the address had been placed in proper hands for presentation, and suggest that his Majesty, not having any responsible minister or confidential adviser, might think it better to delay sending an answer till he had such a minister, through whose hands it might be conveyed. This surmise was afterwards confirmed, and declared to have been the reason why no reply had been sent to the address, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon his return to office. For the king, having failed in the attempt to form a Tory administration, had been obliged to recall his late advisers. Ten days elapsed between the resignation of Sir Robert Peel, in 1835, and the appointment of the Melbourne ministry; and there was a similar interval between the resignation of the Derby ministry, in 1852, and the appointment of their successors. Upon neither of these occasions was there any action taken by Parliament, although a change of ministry is ordinarily effected within one week. But on February 1, 1855, the Aberdeen Ministry resigned, and the Palmerston Ministry accepted office on the 8th inst. Notwithstanding this short interval, on the motion to adjourn the House of Commons, on February 6, a short debate ensued, in which dissatisfaction was expressed at the delay in forming a ministry, and hints were given that, if much further delay occurred, it might be expedient to address the crown upon the subject. Having vindicated the right of the sovereign to the free choice of his constitutional advisers, by whom the administration of the government is to be conducteda freedom which necessitates that they should be unreservedly accepted by Parliament at the outset of their See ante, pp. 174-177. * Mir. of Parl. 1832, pp. 1970– 1992. y Ib. pp. 2024-2079. |