"MY DEAR LORD, — I am honored with his Majesty's com mands to acquaint your lordship, that all difficulties to the arrangements in progress will be obviated by a declaration in the House to-night from a sufficient number of peers, that in consequence of the present state of affairs, they have come to the resolution of dropping their further opposition to the Reform Bill, so that it may pass without delay, and as nearly as possible in its present shape. "I have the honor to be, &c., "HERBERT TAYLOR."1 The peers took this suggestion, and yielded. Had they continued their resistance, a creation of peers could not have been avoided. This interference of the king with the independent deliberations of the House of Lords was, in truth, a more unconstitutional act than a creation of peers, - the one being an irregular interference of the Crown with the freedom of Parliament, - - the other merely the unusual exercise of an undoubted prerogative. But it was resorted to, not to extend the influence of the Crown, or to overawe the Parliament, but to restore harmonious action to those powers of the state, which had been brought into dangerous opposition and conflict. In singular contrast to the history of past times, the greatest extension of the liberties of the people was now obtained, in the last resort, by the influence of the Crown. The Whigs Iose the confidence of the king. Two years after these great events, the prerogatives of the Crown were again called into activity, in a manner which seemed to revive the political history of 1784. Lord Grey's government had lost the confidence of the king. His Majesty had already become apprehensive of danger to the Church, when his alarm was increased by the retirement of Lord Stanley, Sir J. Graham, and two other members of the cabinet, on the question of the appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Church of Ireland. And without consulting his ministers, he gave public expression to this alarm, in replying to an address 1 Roebuck's Hist. of the Whig Ministry, ii. 334 of the prelates and clergy of Ireland.1 The ministry of Lord Grey, enfeebled by the retirement of their colleagues, by disunion, and other embarrassments, soon afterwards resigned. Though they had already lost their popularity, they had continued to command a large majority in the House of Commons. Lord Melbourne's administration which succeeded, was composed of the same materials, and represented the great liberal party, and its parliamentary majority. Lord Melbourne had concluded the business of the session of 1834, with the full support of this majority. But the king, who had withdrawn his confidence from Lord Grey, reposed it still less in Lord Melbourne, having, in the mean time, become entirely converted to the political opinions of the Opposition. Their sudden 1834. In October, the death of Lord Spencer having removed Lord Althorp from the leadership of the House of Commons, and from his office of Chancellor of the dismissal in Exchequer, the king seized upon this opportunity for suddenly dismissing his ministers; and consulted 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 consututed 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 usual 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. But the accidental removal of a single minister, — not necessarily even from the government, but only from 1 Annual Register, 1834, p. 43. one House of Parliament to the other, Iwas 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 administra-、 tion. 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 should have been prompted; but its impolicy was so signal as to throw into the shade its unconstitutional character. under the The Duke of Wellington advised his Majesty that the difficult task of forming a new administration, Temporary arrangements should be intrusted to Sir Robert Peel. But Duke of Wel- such had been the suddenness of the king's resolington. lution, 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, together with 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 intrusted 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,1- - 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 offices of Lord High Treasurer, Lord Chamberlain, and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.2 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 were justifiable; but to resort to a similar expedient, when no danger threatened the state, and 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 had dismissed his ministers, and had resolved to intrust to Sir Robert Peel the formation of another ministry. The accident of Sir Robert's absence 1 Sir Robert Peel himself appears to have admitted that he could not have depended upon more than 130 votes. - Speech of Lord John Russell, Hansard's Debates, 3d Ser., xxvi. 293*. 2 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., xxvi. 224. deferred, for a time, the carrying out of his Majesty's resolution; and the Duke of Wellington, in the interval, adminis‐ tered 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 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 intrusted to him, with honor 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 mier, 1834. If any man could have accomplished the task which the king had so inconsiderately imposed upon his minPeel as pre- ister, 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. So completely had the theory of ministerial responsibility Assumes the been now established, that, though Sir Robert Peel responsibility was out of the realm when the late ministers were dismissed, though he could have had no cogni of the king's acts. 1 Duke of Wellington's Explanations, Feb. 24, 1835; Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., xxvii. 85. 2 H. B. represented the duke, in multiform characters, occupying every seat at the Council Board. |