Sir Robert In 1834 Sir Robert Peel, called to office on the retirement The case of of Lord Melbourne and his colleagues 1, found himself unable Peel. even to attempt the conduct of public business in the face of the majority which confronted him in the House of Commons. He was compelled to advise a dissolution as soon as he had accepted office. The Whig majority was very sensibly diminished, but it remained a majority. Sir Robert Peel retired after two months' struggle with his opponents in the new Parliament. Thus in the case of Mr. Pitt the king was right as to the feeling of the country; in the case of Sir Robert Peel the king was not wholly wrong, for the popularity of the Whigs was passing, but he was not sufficiently right to justify his experiment. In both cases the change of ministry preceded the dissolution, and in both cases the dissolution took place on the advice of responsible ministers. From these instances we see that where the king has had reason to suppose that the policy of his ministers, though acceptable to Parliament is unacceptable to the country, he does not appeal directly to the country, but by changing his ministry for one which he believes to be in accord with the electorate he makes a preliminary appeal to the House of Commons, to be followed, if the House will not support his ministers, by an appeal to the country. where the settled. The third class of cases may be illustrated from the dissolu- Cases tions of 1807, of 1857, of 1859, and of 1886, when, either Commons from the composition of parties, as in the earlier cases, or the are unnovelty of measures introduced, as in 1886, a minister has been unable to secure the support which he requires in the House, and the electorate is invited by the Crown to pronounce definitely upon men or measures. 1 It is plain from the Melbourne Papers, pp. 218-228, that the Melbourne Ministry was not dismissed, as has been often alleged, by the independent action of the king. Lord Melbourne was the first to suggest the retirement of the ministry when Lord Althorp ceased to lead the House of Commons, and the matter was settled amicably between the minister and the king. Speech from the Throne. Royal presence in the House of Lords. Ante, P. 253. §2. The Crown in communication with Parliament. The Crown, if it desires to communicate with either House of Parliament, can only do so by speech from the throne at the opening and close of session or by message in one form or another. For though the Queen is entitled to be present on her throne during the debates in the House of Lords, she might not take part in them. The speech from the throne which and concludes the business of Parliament was opens formerly an address to both Houses delivered in person and capable of being charged with exhortation or rebuke adapted to the prospects or the history of the session. These speeches now contain formal statements as to the foreign relations of the country, communications of topics of legislation to be proposed by ministers, remarks on the condition of trade, on the weather in connection with the harvest, and, at the close of the session, expressions of thanks for the supplies granted and congratulations on the additions to the statutebook which the labours of the session have produced. The presence of the king at the sittings of the House of Lords in the mediaeval Parliaments appears to have been very common. The decision of Henry IV, relating to the right of the Commons to the exclusive dealing with supply, is called the 'Indemnity of the Lords and Commons 2,' and in so far as it contains a permission to the Lords to transact business in the absence of the Crown, it suggests that the House of Lords in the reign of Henry IV still retained so much of the character of the King's Council as to make the presence of the king necessary to the due transaction of its business. But, however this may be, the practice had become so unusual by the reign of Charles II, that the Lords were uncertain what business of the House could be transacted in his presence. On one occasion Charles came unexpectedly into the House when it was sitting in Committee, and thereupon the sitting of the House was resumed. But the king said 1 Stubbs, Const. Hist. iii. 480. 2 Rot. Parl. iii. 611. 'that he is come to renew a custom of his predecessors long discontinued, to be present at debates but not to interrupt the freedom thereof: and therefore desired the Lords to sit down, and put on their hats, and proceed with their business.' Whereupon the Lords again taking their places and putting on their hats the House was again adjourned into a Committee during pleasure.' Charles II was a frequent attendant at debates, being present at as many as forty-three out of eighty-nine in the session of 1672-3, and upon one occasion in the session of 1671 he rebuked the Lords for their disorderly conduct, desiring them not to prophane such a presence as this with the like disorder, but keep their places and proceed with their businesses according to their orders prescribed in the House1.' Commons. Since the death of Queen Anne the presence of king or queen during debates in Parliament has been discontinued. The ceremonies of opening, prorogation or dissolution of Parliament, and of giving the royal assent to bills are the only occasions on which the Queen is present in the House of Lords. Her presence during a debate in the House of Commons In the would be something very different from a revival of a practice long disused. Charles I is the only sovereign2 who has thus ventured to violate the rights of the Commons to freedom and secresy of debate. The Journals of the House for the 4th of January, 1642, contain the only precedent for a situation incompatible alike with the dignity of the Crown and the privileges of the Commons. The entry of the preceding business is interrupted, and the report runs : 1 12 Lords' J. 413. 2 Gardiner, History of England, x. 139. But Dr. Stubbs (Lectures on Mediæval and Modern History, p. 281) describes how in 1532 Henry VIII drove the Annates Bill through Parliament by two visits to the Lords and one to the Commons. In the lower House the voices went against him and he insisted on a division, an exceptional practice at that time. [Dr. Stubbs has kindly referred me to the Domestic State Papers, Henry VIII, vol. v. no. 898. It seems doubtful whether the king came to the House or summoned the Commons to his presence.] Royal messages manual His Majesty came into the House and took Mr. Speaker's chair. 'Gentlemen, 'I am sorry to have this occasion to come unto you.' . . . . .... The journal breaks off abruptly, and its silence is significant. The Crown therefore, except on the occasions which I have mentioned, must communicate with the Houses by messages, under sign- and these may be either formal, under the sign-manual delivered to the Lord Chancellor in the one House, and to the Speaker in the other, and received by members uncovered or of a less formal character, but reported verbatim by a minister or officer of the household to the House of which he is a member: or lastly, it is permissible for a minister to communicate to the House in the course of debate a statement from the Crown, but this only if it relates to matters of fact, and is not made to influence the judgment of the House, and then only with the indulgence of the House '.' reported rerbatim informal. Use of Queen's name in debate. Apart from these modes of address, the Crown has no means of communicating with Parliament. Nor are these used except upon formal occasions. The Queen can direct the attention of the Houses to certain matters in her opening speech. She can while they are sitting communicate a request for supply, or place at the disposal of the country some matters of royal interest or prerogative; she can, at the close of the session, if she choose, comment upon the conduct of business and the progress of legislation. All measures introduced or advocated by the Queen's ministers are assumed to have the royal approval, but to introduce into debate in either House any allusion to the personal wishes of the Queen, or to use Her Majesty's name in such a manner as to influence the judgment of members, is contrary to the rules of the House. Thus during the session of 1876, a member of the House of Commons made at a public meeting a statement to the effect that a measure then before the House had been brought forward in deference to the personal wishes of the Queen. Mr. Disraeli, 1 228 Hansard, 2037. who was then Prime Minister, desired to contradict this statement on behalf of the Queen and with her authority. He said, 'I can only speak with the indulgence of the House. I have the authority of Her Majesty to make a statement on her part, but at the same time, as I have felt it my duty to place before Her Majesty the fact that it is not in accordance with the rules of the House that the name of the Sovereign can be introduced into debate without the permission of the House-it therefore rests with the House whether I shall go If the House desires it I shall do so.' on. Mr. Speaker thereupon said, 'As the House is aware, one of the rules of the House is this-that the introduction of the Queen's name into debate, with a view to influence the decision of the House, would certainly be out of order. At the same time, if the statement of the right honourable gentleman relates to matters of fact, and is not made to influence the judgment of the House, I am not prepared to say that, with the indulgence of the House, he may not introduce Her Majesty's name into the statement 1.' The House is the ultimate authority in the matter, and may set aside its own conventions, if it so please, and if occasion require. § 3. The Crown as a party to legislation. We have still to consider the action of the Crown as a Legislation without party to legislation, and looking back at the history of this the Crown. matter, and noting, as we have had to do, the large share of legislative power which the Crown once possessed, we are apt to forget that laws have been passed to which no royal assent was given; we are apt to forget the episode of the Commonwealth; the restoration of Charles II; the resolution of the Lords and Commons that the crown should be offered, on the abdication of James II, to William and Mary; the strange conclusion at which Lord Chancellor Thurlow arrived during the insanity of George III, in 1788, that he could put the 1 228 Hansard, 2037. |