years Lord John Russell's administration resigned on the ground that they had but a small majority against a motion of Mr. Disraeli which was substantially a movement in favour of a return to protection, and that they were defeated, though in a thin house, upon a motion by Mr. Locke King for leave to bring in a Bill for the Extension of the Franchise. After the failure of three successive attempts to form a new administration, Her Majesty intimated her wish that her former ministers should resume their offices, and the Royal commands were accordingly obeyed. The reasons assigned for this resignation seemed so insufficient that Lord Derby* did not hesitate to express to Her Majesty his doubts that they formed the sole and even the principal ground for that resignation. If indeed they were the real causes for that step, the inconvenience of the prolonged ministerial crisis and the subsequent return of the ministry to office seem to indicate that the resignation was unjustifiable. In 1859 Lord Derby's ministry was defeated on its Reform Bill, and avoided resignation by a dissolution. The inconveniences to which this dissolution gave rise were even greater than those which result from a prolonged crisis. Apart from many other objections to which it was exposed, it left, as we have already seen, the country without a Parliament for two months at a time when war was hourly expected; and it compelled the Executive to incur the responsibility of increasing without the sanction of Parliament the naval and the military armaments of the country. The same cause which led to the dissolution of 1859 produced the resignation of 1866. Lord Palmerston's administration had continued for the natural duration of one Parliament; and in the newly-elected House of Commons it com

* Ann. Reg. 1851, 30.

manded a great majority. Upon the death of their chief this ministry resolved to introduce a bill for the extension of the suffrage, and publicly staked their existence upon the success of the measure. Their supporters received the bill with great dislike, and in some cases with open revolt. But so far from showing any hostility to the ministry in other respects they avowed their general satisfaction with the administration of public affairs, and their reluctance to any change in Her Majesty's council. Ultimately the bill failed and the ministry resigned. They were distinctly pledged to this course, and the pledges of public men should be maintained. But unless a resignation were from the circumstances of the case justifiable, no such pledge should have been given. The embarrassment of the ministry was of their own creation. They had successfully conducted during six years the affairs of the country under the old franchise. Even if an alteration in that franchise were desirable, it could not be pretended that the necessity for such a change had suddenly become so urgent that the country could not be governed without it. A general election had just taken place. There was no unusual demonstration of public opinion. The peace of the country was uninterrupted. The absence, indeed, of any considerable political excitement was one of the arguments in favour of dealing with such a question at that particular time. When in such circumstances a ministry resigns, it incurs the risk of a serious defection among its former supporters. The Queen's Government must be carried on. The new ministers, therefore, if they have succeeded to office not by any intrigue on their part, but by the default of their predecessors, may justly claim a fair and generous support from many of those whose sympathy they could. not otherwise have expected.

To me, therefore, it appears that these cases, so far from

ruley

strengthening the position that legislative success is essential to ministerial power, furnish clear examples of the impropriety of that rule, and of the danger of departing from the beaten paths of the Constitution. If in any of these cases the House of Commons had desired a change of ministry, it might have asked for such a change. When no such request was made and when no actual impediment was presented to the conduct of government, the ministry ought to have remained in their places. It is unreasonable to coerce Parliament in the exercise of its legitimate functions on questions unconnected with administration by a threat of all the interruption to public business and all the inconvenience and delay that are inseparable either from a ministerial crisis or from a dissolution.

Open

§ 8. The principle that the confidence which Parliament reposes in the servants of the Crown is a confidence in their administrative and not in their legislative power questions. serves to explain a difficulty which sometimes presents itself in our political arrangements. There are sometimes questions upon which the members of the administration, notwithstanding their general obligation of mutual support, are avowedly free to act according to their individual opinions. It is therefore a matter of some importance to decide what questions ought to be thus left open, and what should be regarded as ministerial. No distinct rule has, so far as I am aware, been laid down to guide such decisions. But from the point of view I have attempted to indicate, the principle seems distinct and intelligible. If a ministry ought to resign when only it is defeated upon great administrative measures, none but measures of administration ought to be made ministerial questions. All other questions which do not affect the ministry as such—that is, which do not impede the conduct

of Her Majesty's Government-should be open. For the proper conduct of the public service there must be amongst ministers a general agreement as to the manner in which that service should be carried on. As, then, no question which is not a question of administration should displace ministers, so no question which is not a question of administration should be made a ministerial question. It is upon all questions relating to the executive government that, according to the dictum of Lord Macaulay, in Parliament the ministers are bound to act as one man. For the proper administration of public business ministers. are jointly and severally responsible. For the measures which Parliament thinks fit to enact, they have, until they are called upon to administer them, no further responsibility than that of ordinary members of either House. Their agreement of partnership must be taken to extend to matters of administration only, and not, except incidentally, to matters of legislation.

This principle also explains why the same questions have at one time been regarded as open, and at another time have been treated as ministerial. They were open so long as they did not affect the practical working of Government. They became ministerial when their settlement became necessary for the proper administration of public affairs. For many years the question of Catholic Emancipation remained open. At length the Duke of Wellington found that its settlement was essential to the peace of the country, and all the members of his administration were required to support the measure accordingly. In like manner Parliamentary Reform did not become a ministerial measure until opposition to it or delay in its settlement seemed to threaten civil war. Lord Melbourne declared that the repeal of the Corn Laws was the wildest idea that ever entered the mind of man; yet at that very

time several free-traders were members of his Cabinet. A few years afterwards Sir Robert Peel made this very question of the Corn Laws the basis of a reconstruction of his Cabinet, because he would not undertake the responsibility of executing them when a famine was impending. The Ballot and Short Parliaments were for many. years open questions in the British Cabinets. The reason was that no difficulty was then felt in administering the Government under a system of open voting and of septennial Parlia

ments.