session of 1834, with the full support of this majority. But the king, who had withdrawn his confidence from Earl Grey, reposed it still less in Lord Melbourne, having, in the meantime, become entirely converted to the political opinions of the opposition.

Their sud

den dismis

In October, the death of Earl Spencer having removed his son, Lord Althorp, from the sal in 1834. leadership of the House of Commons, and from his office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, the king seized this opportunity for suddenly dismissing his ministers; and proceeded to consult the Duke of Wellington upon the formation of a government, from the opposite party.' Lord Althorp's elevation to the House of Lords rendered necessary a partial reconstruction of the ministry: but assuredly that circumstance alone would not have suggested the propriety of taking counsel with those who constituted but a small minority of the House of Commons. Lord Melbourne proposed to supply the place of Lord Althorp by Lord John Russell,-a far abler man: but the king was determined that the ministry should be dissolved. All the accustomed grounds for dismissing a ministry were wanting. There was no immediate difference of opinion between them and the king, upon any measure, or question of public policy: there was no disunion among themselves: nor were there any indications that they had lost the confidence of Parliament.

See the Duke of Wellington's explanation of these proceedings in a letter to the Duke of Buckingham, Nov. 21st, 1831.-Courts and Cabinets of William IV., &c., ii. 143, et seq.

But the accidental removal of a single minister, — not necessarily from the government, but only from one House of Parliament to the other, was made the occasion for dismissing the entire administration. It is true that the king viewed with apprehension the policy of his ministers in regard to the Irish church: but his assent was not then required to any specific measure of which he disapproved, nor was this the ground assigned for their dismissal. The right of the king to dismiss his ministers was unquestionable: but constitutional usage has prescribed certain conditions under which this right should be exercised. It should be exercised solely in the interests of the state, and on grounds which can be justified to Parliament, to whom, as well as to the king, the ministers are responsible. Even in 1784, when George III. had determined to crush the coalition ministry, he did not venture to dismiss them, until they had been defeated in the House of Lords,

upon Mr. Fox's India Bill. And again, in 1807, the ministers were at issue with the king upon a grave constitutional question, before he proceeded to form another ministry. But here it was not directly alleged that the ministers had lost the confidence of the king; and so little could it be affirmed that they had lost the confidence of Parliament, that an immediate dissolution was counselled by the new administration. The act of the king bore too much the impress of his personal will, and too little of those reasons of state policy by which it ehould have been prompted: but its impolicy was

so signal as to throw into the shade its unconstitutional character.

Temporary arrange

ments under

the Duke of

The Duke of Wellington advised his Majesty that the difficult task of forming a new administration, should be entrusted to Sir Robert Wellington. Peel. But such had been the suddenness of the King's resolution, that Sir Robert, wholly unprepared for any political changes, was then at Rome. The duke, however, promptly met this difficulty by accepting the office of first lord of the Treasury himself, until Sir Robert Peel's arrival. He also held the seals of one of his Majesty's principal secretaries of state, which,-as there was no other secretary,-constituted his grace secretary for the home, the foreign and the colonial departments. His sole colleague was Lord Lyndhurst, who was entrusted with the great seal: but still retained the office of Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer.

This assumption of the government by a single man, while Parliament was not sitting,-avowedly for the purpose of forming an administration from a party whose following comprised less than a fourth of the House of Commons,'-presented an unpromising view of constitutional government, after the Reform Act.

In defence of this concentration of offices, the precedent of the Duke of Shrewsbury was cited, who, in the last days of Queen Anne, had held the several

1 Sir Robert Peel himself admitted that he could not have depended upon more than 130 votes.-Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxvi. 224, 293*, 425. See also Chap. VIII.

offices of Lord High Treasurer, Lord Chamberlain, and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.' But the critical emergency of that occasion scarcely afforded an example to be followed, except where some public danger is to be averted. The queen was upon her death-bed the succession was disputed,-a civil war was impending, and the queen's ministers had been in secret correspondence with the Pretender. At such a time of peril, any means of strengthening the executive authority was justifiable: but to resort to a similar expedient, when no danger threatened the state, merely for the purpose of concerting ministerial arrangements and party combinations, if justifiable on other grounds,-could scarcely be defended on the plea of precedent. Its justification, if possible, was rather to be sought in the temporary and provisional nature of the arrangement. The king, having dismissed his ministers, had resolved to entrust to Sir Robert Peel the formation of another ministry. The accident of that statesman's absence deferred, for a time, the carrying out of his Majesty's resolution; and the Duke of Wellington, in the interval, administered the executive business of several departments of the government, in the same manner as outgoing ministers generally undertake its administration, until their successors are appointed. The provisional character of this inter-ministerial government was shown by the circumstances stated by the duke himself, that during the whole time he held the

Hansard's Deb., 3rd Ser., xxvi. 224.

seals, there was not a single office disposed of, nor an act done, which was not essentially necessary for the service of the king, and of the country.' That it was an expedient of doubtful and anomalous character,—which, if drawn into precedent, might be the means of abuses dangerous to the state,could scarcely be denied: but as the duke had exercised the extraordinary powers entrusted to him, with honour and good faith, his conduct, though exposed to invective, ridicule, and caricature,' did not become an object of parliamentary censure. Such was the temper of the House of Commons, that had the duke's dictatorship,'-as it was called, —been more open to animadversion, it had little to expect from their forbearance.

Sir Robert

Peel as pre

6

If any man could have accomplished the task which the king had so inconsiderately immier, 1834. posed upon his minister, Sir Robert Peel was unquestionably the man most likely to succeed. He perceived at once the impossibility of meeting the existing House of Commons, at the head of a Tory administration; and the king was therefore advised to dissolve Parliament.

responsi

So completely had the theory of ministerial reAssumes the sponsibility been now established, that, bility of the though Sir Robert Peel was out of the realm when the late ministers were dismissed, though he could have had no cognizance

king's acts.

1 Duke of Wellington's Explanations, Feb. 24, 1835; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxvii. 85.

H. B. represented the duke, in multiform characters, occupying every seat at the Council Board.