Ministerial responsibility. ONE of the most important constitutional changes of the nineteenth century has been the removal of the sovereign from the arena of political contest. It is now an accepted convention of the Constitution that the king belongs to no party, and that his name must not be introduced into political controversies. The idea, implied in the phrase "His Majesty's opposition," that both parties are acting in the interest of the crown, cannot be said to have been thoroughly established till after the accession of Queen Victoria. But if ministers are to accept full responsibility for the official policy of the crown, it follows that they must have full control over that policy, though it is their duty to explain fully to the sovereign the course they intend to pursue, and to give careful consideration to any advice that he may offer. "Though decisions must ultimately conform to the sense of those who are to be responsible for them, yet their business is to inform and persuade the sovereign, not to overrule him.". The change may be expressed by saying that in the seventeenth century the ultimate responsibility for government rested with the 1 Mr. Gladstone. sovereign, the ministers of the crown forming a body of expert advisers whom he was bound to consult, while in the nineteenth century the actual responsibility rests with the ministers of the crown, the sovereign being an expert adviser whom they are bound to consult. The sovereign has never formally lost the constitutional right to dismiss his ministers, but the right has not been exercised since the time of George III.,1 and is very unlikely to be · exercised again. dissolu In the exercise of the royal prerogative the sovereign Right of is now guided by the advice of his ministers, who in their tion. turn are responsible to Parliament. This is true, for example, of the right of dissolving Parliament. Even as late as the early years of the reign of Queen Victoria the idea was still prevalent that by assenting to a request of a Prime Minister for a dissolution of Parliament the sovereign gave an official expression of approval of the policy of the minister. But it is now a recognized right of a Prime Minister defeated in the House to choose between resignation and an appeal to the electors. Circumstances might conceivably arise-such as a defeat of a ministry soon after a General Election-that would justify the sovereign in refusing to agree to a dissolution of Parliament, but "even in this case, whoever was sent for to succeed must, with his appointment, assume the responsibility of this act, and be prepared to defend it in Parliament." Recent events have shown that the creation of Peers is to be regarded as part of the royal prerogative for the exercise of which the Cabinet must be prepared to accept responsibility. As we have seen, George III. acted as an avowed party leader, and his successor made no secret of his partiality 1 Lord Melbourne was dismissed in 1834 at his own suggestion. Queen for the Tory party and his objection to Parliamentary Reform. If he had lived a few years longer, this objection would probably have led to a constitutional crisis that might have been fatal to the monarchy. The accession of William IV., a bluff, amiable monarch of liberal sympathies, saved the situation and enabled the Reform Act of 1832 to be carried through by constitutional means. The death of William IV. placed a woman on the 1837-1901. throne for the fourth time in our history. The youth and high character of the new sovereign did much to restore the prestige of the monarchy, which had been seriously shaken in the previous reigns. "Since the century began there had been three kings of England, of whom the first was long an imbecile, the second won the reputation of a profligate, and the third was regarded as little better than a buffoon."1 It can scarcely be wondered at that respect for the monarchy was at a low ebb in 1837. In Lord Melbourne, who was Prime Minister at the time of her accession, the Queen had an adviser able to restrain her natural impetuosity within the limits of constitutional usage. Her close friendship with him naturally led her to sympathize with the Whig party, and so created some difficulty when the swing of the pendulum obliged Melbourne to resign, and brought the Tories under Peel into power. Peel's desire to change the ladies-in-waiting, who were all of the Whig party, threatened at one time to develop into a serious constitutional question, but a reasonable compromise was arrived at. Peel's kindly tact and consideration soon won the Queen's esteem, and his policy with regard to the Corn Laws had her warm approval. 1 Lee, Queen Victoria. List. At the accession of Queen Victoria the separation The Civil between the national revenue and the personal revenue of the sovereign became complete. George III. had, in return for a Civil List, surrendered the hereditary revenues of the crown, and William IV. also gave up certain other sources of income, and received a "Civil List" of £510,000 a year. On the accession of Queen Victoria all properly national expenses were taken over by the State, and the "Civil List" was fixed at £385,000. The amount proved inadequate in the latter years of the reign, and the "Civil List" is now £470,000, to which must be added the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster (about £60,000). The income from the hereditary revenues surrendered by the crown, mostly Crown Lands, now managed by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, amounts to rather more than £450,000. Sir Robert Peel has been described by Lord Rosebery as "the model of all Prime Ministers." He "kept a strict supervision over every department; he seems to have been master of the business of each and all of them." The growing complexity of the work of administration makes it impossible for a Prime Minister in the present day to keep the same intimate relation with all departments of government. As head of the Cabinet the Prime Minister is now obliged to accept responsibility for the departmental policy of his colleagues, without any possibility of detailed knowledge. and Lord The death of Peel in 1850 left Palmerston the most conspicuous figure in English political life. While opposed The Queen to Parliamentary Reform at home, Palmerston was strongly Palmerliberal in his foreign policy, and threw the influence of ston. England into the scale on the side of what the Queen and Prince Albert regarded as revolutionary movements. The Mr. Gladstone on the author Queen frequently complained that Palmerston carried out his policy without regard to her constitutional right to be consulted, and without affording her the information necessary for understanding it. Finally, in 1850, the Prince Consort drew up a memorandum explaining what the Queen claimed from her ministers : "The Queen requires, first, that Lord Palmerston will distinctly state what he proposes in a given case, in order that the Queen may know as distinctly to what she is giving her royal sanction. Secondly, having once given her sanction to such a measure, that it be not arbitrarily altered or modified by the minister. Such an act she must consider as failing in sincerity towards the crown, and justly to be visited by her constitutional right of dismissing that minister. She expects to be kept informed of what passes between him and foreign ministers before important decisions are taken based upon their intercourse; to receive the foreign despatches in good time; and to have the drafts for her approval sent to her in sufficient time to make herself acquainted with their contents before they must be sent off." Palmerston promised amendment, but was dismissed a few months later for expressing approval of Louis Napoleon's coup d'état without any previous consultation with the Prime Minister and his colleagues. Before long he was triumphantly restored to power, but he succeeded in avoiding friction with the Queen, who claimed no right to dictate the foreign policy of her ministers, but only to be kept clearly informed what that policy was. In her relations with her ministers in the later years of her reign the Queen adhered strictly to the constitutional ity of the principle that the Prime Minister has the right to the confidence and support of the sovereign. In his Gleanings crown. |