Adverse amend ments to ministerial measures. Allowable amend ments. In 1830, a Bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to forgeries, which was introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Peel (the Home Secretary) having been amended, by the introduction of a clause abolishing the punishment of death for forgery, against his consent, he renounced all further responsibility for the Bill, which was then taken up by an opposition member (Sir James Mackintosh) who succeeded in passing it through the House. But the House of Lords amended the Bill so as to make it acceptable to the Government. Whereupon Sir Robert Peel resumed the charge of it, obtained the consent of the House of Commons to the Lords' amendments, and it became law.d In 1852, Lord John Russell (then Prime Minister) on moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws respecting the local militia, was met by an amendment proposed by Lord Palmerston, to omit the word 'local,' which was carried against the Government. Regarding this as a determination on the part of the House not to allow the ministers of the crown to lay before them their plan for effecting an important administrative reform, but to insist upon the introduction of some other measure which ministers had not prepared, of which they knew nothing, and for which they were not willing to be held responsible, Lord John Russell declined to bring in the Bill, and three days afterwards, the ministry resigned. Subsequently, the order of leave was read, and members of the new administration were ordered to prepare and bring in the Bill.f The nature and extent of the responsibility which now appertains to ministers of the crown, in matters of legislation, will be rendered more intelligible by a consideration of the following precedents:-- In 1841, Lord John Russell, in defending his administration against Sir R. Peel's motion for a vote of want of confidence, protested against a government being expected to carry all the measures they may submit to Parliament, or to possess the same general and uniform support on the part of the House of Commons which was required when ministers had merely acts of administration to perform.' 'If,' said he, 'on the one hand, new duties have been imposed on ministers, and you require them to carry through Parliament measures which they deem of essential importance, so, on the other hand, you must make a fair allowance for the effect of discussion, and the expression of the deliberate opinions, first of d Mirror of Parl. 1830, pp. 2195, 2245, 2956. • Hans. Deb. vol. cxix. pp. 838 876, 887. Ibid. vol. cxx. pp. 267, 281. members of this House and secondly of our constituents, which will inevitably occasion the alteration of some measures and the rejection of others.' g In 1844, Sir R. Peel's administration was defeated in Committee Factories Bill. of the House of Commons, on the Factories Bill, the House affirming, by three distinct votes, each of which was strenuously opposed by ministers, the expediency of reducing the hours of labour in factories to ten instead of twelve. Ministers, however, tried the question a fourth time, on a motion which involved the same principle, and succeeded in reversing the former decision, by a majority of seven. The effect of these adverse votes was to place the Bill in a state of inextricable confusion. Shortly afterwards, the Home Secretary (Sir James Graham) expressed to the House, for himself and colleagues, their sense of the imperative duty of ministers to accept what they deemed to be a deliberate expression of the opinion of the House, provided only that they were not thereby called upon to advocate what they believed to be opposed to the public interests. Such being their opinion in regard to the vote of the House in favour of a restriction of factory labour to ten hours, he moved for leave to withdraw the Bill, and introduce another, which while it embodied various points to which the House had acceded, nevertheless upheld the principle of twelve hours' labour.h Lord John Russell opposed this motion, and deprecated the course of ministers, in seeking to compel the House, unless they were prepared to overthrow the government, to sanction the introduction of a new Bill, to contain a principle which the House had already pronounced to be objectionable. He did not think it would be for the public advantage if a government should consider itself bound to carry i every measure in the House exactly in the shape they had proposed it, and he hoped that, with respect to questions of legislation affecting the whole body of the people, of whose feelings so many members must be cognisant, the House would retain some of its legislative authority. In reply, Sir R. Peel acknowledged 'that with respect to many great measures, the sense of the legislature ought to prevail; and that if no great principle be involved, and very dangerous consequences are not expected to result, the government ought not to declare to Parliament that they stake their existence as a government on any particular measures, but are bound, on certain occasions, to pay proper deference to the expressed opinions of their supporters.' And, when making such concessions, they ought not to be taunted with yielding their own opinions and adopting * Mirror of Parl. 1841, pp. 2120, 2121. Hans. Deb. vol. lxxiii. pp. 1482 Ibid. p. 1638. And see Lord Howick's remarks, Ibid. vol. lxxiv. p. 931. Reform those of a majority. As to his asking the House to accept a new Bill, containing the objectionable provision above mentioned, Sir R. Peel said, the constitutional practice was to permit opportunities of frequent deliberation on legislative measures, and not to consider one or two decisions of the House, carried by small majorities, to be conclusive. Thus, it has been expressly provided that there shall be a number of stages through which every Bill must pass, in order that when opinions are divided, or nearly balanced, there may be an opportunity for reconsidering a decision. Whereupon the first Bill was withdrawn, and a new one ordered. In committee on this Bill, Lord Ashley again moved to insert a clause restricting the hours of labour; but Sir R. Peel having stated that if this motion were agreed to, ministers would resign, it was negatived by a large majority.k On May 28, 1866, under Earl Russell's administration, an instruction to make provision against bribery in the new Reform Bill was carried, in the House of Commons, against ministers. Nevertheless the government determined to proceed with the Bill, but left it to the mover of the instruction to frame the bribery clauses. This course, however, was objected to by the opposition, who contended that it was the duty of ministers to consider how this matter could be best disposed of. But soon afterwards, ministers were again defeated on this Bill, when they resigned office, and the Bill was withdrawn. The proceedings in the House of Commons on the English Reform Bill, brought in by the Derby administration in 1867, afford a striking example of the extent and importance of the modifications to which ministers may be induced to consent, in a measure submitted by them to the judgment of Parliament. The unnatural position of the ministry at this time, in having accepted office when their party was in a minority in the House of Commons, and in continuing to hold office upon the sufferance of their political opponents, coupled with the necessity, admitted on all sides, that a measure of reform should be carried through Parliament at this juncture, was the excuse if not the justification of ministers for consenting that their Reform Bill should be virtually rem odelled by the votes of opposition members.m J Hans Deb. vol. lxxiii. pp. 1639, 1640. See Lord Howick's observations in reply to this argument, ibid. vol. lxxv. P. 1051. Ibid. vol. lxxiv. pp. 899, 1094, 1104. In the year 1847, during Lord John Russell's administration, a Ten Hours' Factory Bill was carried. It was treated by the Cabinet as an open question, ministers being divided in opinion as to the policy and expedi ency of the measure. Knight, Pop. Hist. of Eng. vol. viii. p. 552. 1 Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxiii. pp. 1348, 1589. But see the similar course taken by Earl Derby's government in 1858, when Capt. Vivian carried a resolution for the reorganisation of the War Department. Ibid, vol. cli. pp. 555-563. m See Homersham Cox, History of the Reform Bills of 1866 and 1867. A similar excuse may be urged in extenuation of the proceedings which took place in the House of Commons in the following session, upon the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills. Upon this occasion a new element of confusion was added, namely, that ministers, having obtained permission from the Queen to dissolve Parliament upon the question of the Irish Church, were practically debarred from making their appeal to the constituent body until the Acts for enlarging the representation of the people should have gone into operation. This involved a delay of several months, during which time they retained office without being able to insure the adoption of their measures by Parliament, and were compelled to submit to a far more extensive alteration of those measures than was consistent either with the respect due to their position as ministers of the crown, or with the healthy action of parliamentary government. These anomalous proceedings, it may be hoped, will not be again repeated, else they must inevitably lead to the destruction of the most important securities against the abuse of power, either on the part of ministers, or of the House of Commons, which are afforded by our present political system. Bills members; Adverting to the privilege of private members to take Important the initiative in all matters of legislation, it was contended brought in by Sir Robert Peel, in 1844, that individual members of by private Parliament had a perfect right to introduce such measures as they thought fit, without the sanction of the government.' Again, in 1850, Sir Robert Peel urged the propriety of affording to private members an opportunity of inviting consideration to great questions of public interest, but nevertheless agreed that it was an excellent principle that the duty of preparing measures of legislation in all such cases should be undertaken by the ministers of the crown." Numerous precedents can indeed be adduced of the in- but never troduction of important public Bills by private members; without but unless with the direct consent and co-operation of consent of ministers, they have never obtained the sanction of both Houses of Parliament. Thus, in 1838, on a private member moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the provisional government of New Zealand, objection was taken by Mr. C. W. Wynn (an eminent constitutional authority) See post, p. 411. 'See Park's Dogmas, p. 40. Hans. Deb. vol. lxxv. p. 475. And see Cox, Commonwealth, p. d Hans. Deb. vol. cviii. p. 974. X passed ministers. and others, that Bills of this description, or which might involve questions of international law, should be submitted to Parliament by the administration. In reply, the case was cited of the Bill to establish a colony in South Australia, which was brought in by a private member, though with the formal consent of the crown to the motion for its introduction. Whereupon Lord John Russell (the Home Secretary) gave the consent of the crown to the introduction of this Bill; reserving the right to ministers to support or oppose it at any future stage; and the Bill was accordingly introduced. But being found to contain certain objectionable provisions it was opposed by ministers, and rejected on its second reading.f In 1844, Lord Brougham brought in a Bill to codify the criminal law, urging in reply to objections by other peers, that he did not understand that there was any maxim of constitutional law which required that a Bill of this or of any other nature should be introduced by the government.' But the Bill was dropped after its second reading. In 1861, Mr. Locke King brought in a Bill for the extension of the county franchise, and Mr. Baines a Bill to extend the borough franchise; but both these measures were thrown out by means of the previous question upon the motion to read them a second time, being opposed by Lord Palmerston (the Prime Minister) on the ground that measures of such importance ought to originate with a responsible government, and not to be left in the hands of a private member to take their chance.' And it was forcibly objected by another speaker, that a private member, however able, was responsible only to himself and those who sent him to Parliament, and his views were likely to be limited by the desires and circumstances of a small section of the community, so that it would be unreasonable to expect from such an one a broad and statesmanlike measure.i h On the other hand, an elaborate and important Bill to amend the law regarding the registration of county voters in Scotland, was submitted to Parliament, in 1861, by a private member, and though it was objected that a Bill which made an alteration in the constitution of the country ought to have been brought in by ministers, the Lord Advocate denied that this was necessary, or sound doctrine, and gave his cordial support to the Bill, which was agreed to by both Houses, and became law. j In 1865, Mr. Whiteside introduced two Bills to regulate the Irish Court of Chancery, in opposition to a measure submitted to Parlia • Mirror of Parl. 1838, pp. 4529 4532. Ibid. pp. 4914-4921. h Ibid. vol. clxi. pp. 610, 657. i Ibid. vol. clxii. p. 382. 3 Ibid. vol. clxiii. p. 599; Act 24 & 25 Vict. c. 83. |