Ability of ministers to pass their measures. him, as a matter of form, in proceeding with his resolutions. But afterwards, at the suggestion of Mr. Ayrton, the mover agreed that, as a matter of policy, it was better that any resolution placing a charge upon the Consolidated Fund should be moved by a minister of the crown, and should not proceed from the Opposition side of the House.' He therefore abstained from moving such of the resolutions as were of that character, and confined himself to introducing 'resolution four, that the salaries and expenses therein specified should cease to be charged on the Consolidated Fund. That was a resolution diminishing the charge on the public, which any member might move.'d The rules of the House of Commons, as will be presently noticed, afford to an administration ample opportunity for inviting the attentive consideration of Parliament to whatever measures they may think fit to propose. But their ability to carry them successfully through both Houses must wholly depend upon the extent to which they possess the confidence of Parliament, and especially of the Lower House. An adequate degree of parliamentary support is essential, not merely to the continuance in office of the ministers of the crown, but also to the integrity and usefulness of their legislative measures. If they cannot rely upon being able to pass their Bills, at all events without substantial alteration, they will naturally refrain from bestowing the necessary pains to render them perfect and complete; and thus either the statute-book will be encumbered with crude and imperfect laws, or else the duty of framing desirable measures will pass out of the hands of the responsible servants of the crown, and will be assumed by men who merely represent the will and opinions of a popular assembly, to the manifest detriment of the public interests, and in violation of the foundation principles of parliamentary government. Twice, within the past ten years, the executive government have had recourse to the unusual proceeding of d Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxvii. p. 1667. * See Mr. Disraeli's speech on the Business of the Session, August 30, 1848, Hans. Deb. vol. ci. especially pp. 704-707. ment Bills based on general re solutions. inviting the House of Commons to assist them in deter- Governmining upon the leading principles whereon particular ent Bills should be framed, which were of the highest importance in a constitutional point of view, but in regard to which successive administrations had failed to propound a policy acceptable to Parliament. The course adopted by ministers upon these occasions was to submit to the House, in committee of the whole, certain general resolutions, which, after they had been altered by the committee in accordance with the prevailing opinions of the majority, became the framework of a Bill, which was introduced as a ministerial measure. A proceeding of this kind, however, is at variance with the principle of ministerial responsibility, and can only be justified on grounds of public necessity. India Go The first case of this description occurred in 1858, in regard to the government of India. On February 12, 1858, a Bill to transfer her vernment majesty's possessions in India to the government of the British Bill. crown was laid before the House of Commons by the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, but before its second reading a change of ministry took place. The question was then taken up by Mr. Disraeli, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, who on March 26 introduced a Bill for the same purpose, though differing materially in the method for effecting the object. Neither of these measures found favour with Parliament, or with the public. Whereupon, on April 12, Lord John Russell, 'with considerable doubt and hesitation,' suggested another course, namely, that instead of persevering with their Bill, ministers should consent to have the whole subject discussed in committee of the whole, upon general resolutions, so that there might be conclusions arrived at between the government and the House of Commons as to the basis upon which the Indian Government Bill should be founded. He referred to a former proceeding in 1813 as a precedent for this proposal, but it was shown by other speakers that this case was inapplicable, inasmuch as a preliminary committee was then required, in compliance with the standing orders concerning trade. Mr. Disraeli, however, promptly acceded to Lord John Russell's suggestion, and even invited his lordship to propose the resolutions. But the sense of the House was against a matter of such importance being taken up by an independent member. Accordingly, a few days afterwards, Mr. Hans. Deb. vol. cxlix. pp. 858-877. Reform Disraeli laid upon the table of the House fourteen resolutions, distinctly embodying the outline of a legislative measure, which differed considerably from the original ministerial Bill. After much debate in committee, five only of these resolutions were reported to the House on June 17, the remaining resolutions having been withdrawn. A new Bill was then introduced by Mr. Disraeli, in conformity with the scheme agreed to by the House, which was passed into a law.g The next attempt to obtain the sanction of the House of Commons to this method of originating a government measure was in 1867, in relation to the reform of Parliament. But this time the resolutions proposed were open to more serious objection, on account of their vague and indefinite nature, and meeting with resolute opposition from the House itself the ministry abandoned them, and brought in a regular Bill instead. The circumstances were as follows: The Russell administration resigned office in 1866, from their inability to induce the House of Commons to accept their proposed Reform Bill. They were succeeded by the Derby ministry, who, being themselves divided in opinion as to the proper basis for any such measure, determined at the outset not to proceed by Bill, but by introducing a series of resolutions, through which they hoped to elicit from the House of Commons the views they took upon the main questions which would be necessarily involved in any Reform Bill.' It was admitted that 'the resolutions were somewhat vaguely and indistinctly drawn;' but the object was 'not to pledge the government to a specific point upon any one of those resolutions, but to endeavour to obtain the general opinion of the House of Commons as to what measures would be likely to meet with a general assent.' h On February 11, 1867, Mr. Disraeli (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) moved that the House of Commons should on a certain day resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider of the original Reform Act; proposing to submit to this committee thirteen resolutions on the subject of Reform. But on the day named, when Mr. Disraeli moved that the House should go into committee on these resolutions, it was objected that they were simply abstract propositions,' conveying 'no definite idea whatever,' and depending altogether upon details not yet made known as to their actual operation. It was furthermore asserted to be the duty of the executive government to give advice to this House, to initiate its business, and to decide on what propositions shall be brought forward on important public occasions:' while it is the business of the House to decide on the acts of the executive Hans. Deb. in loco. Annual Earl of Derby, Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxv. p. 1285. government, and if it does not approve them to censure them. If the House allows itself to be induced to take a consultative position --if it begins a measure which government ought to begin, and allows itself to be asked questions, and to give its views to the government, the House will be taking away the responsibility of the ministers of the crown.'i On the following day, Mr. Disraeli informed the House that ministers had determined not to press their resolutions, but to bring in a Reform Bill as speedily as possible. This decision gave general satisfaction, and forestalled an intended motion of Mr. Gladstone to the effect that a discussion of the proposed resolutions must have tended to delay the practical consideration of the question, and that it would be for the public advantage that the government plan should be submitted to the House in a definite form.j make it The new Reform Bill was submitted to the House of Commons by Changes in Mr. Disraeli on February 25; but being too restricted in its exten- Reform sion of the franchise to the working classes, it failed to satisfy the House. Without waiting for any direct vote upon the question, the acceptable government withdrew this Bill, and on March 18 introduced another to Parliaof a more liberal character. This measure had, it appears, already ment. engaged the attention of the cabinet, but being disapproved of by three prominent and influential ministers, it had been laid aside in favour of the one first presented to the House. Its resuscitation led to the resignation of these ministers, but their places were filled up, and the Bill proceeded upon. During its progress through the House of Commons, the ministerial measure encountered a formidable opposition, and was subjected to numerous and important amendments; but was finally passed on July 15. After a narrow escape, owing to further amendments which were inserted in the Bill by the House of Lords, to which the Commons refused to agree, it became law; materially altered, indeed, from the original draft agreed upon by the ministers, in some respects contrary to their advice and approval, but not so as to induce them to abandon the charge of it, or to be unwilling to hold themselves responsible for it.k It will be observed that the peculiar responsibility which attaches to ministers of the crown in matters of legislation is confined for the most part to the initiation and control of public business. As regards Private Bills, Private wherein the rights of private parties are adjudicated upon by Parliament in a semi-judicial manner, an opposite Mr. Lowe, ibid. p. 960. And see Earl Grey's observations, ibid. pp. 1294-1298. Ibid. pp. 1021, 1022. Hans. Deb. Session 1867. Cox, Hist. Reform Bills of 1866 & 1867, chapters vi.-xix. Bills. ministers towards Private Bills. Position of principle prevails. Thus, it was remarked by Sir Robert Peel, when Home Secretary in 1830, in reference to the Rye Harbour Bill, then pending in Parliament, I must decline interference with any private Bill, and I cannot but think, from the experience of every day, that the principle on which ministers abstain from any such interference is most salutary." Again, it was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Baring) in 1840, that 'it is contrary to all established practice for ministers of the crown to give an opinion upon a private Bill. For this reason, as well as on account of their pressing official duties, the occupants of the Treasury bench are exempt from serving on Private Bill Committees." Legislative rights of the Crown. m But if an attempt should be made to infringe upon the established rules of Parliament by urging the House to permit a private Bill to proceed, notwithstanding the report of the committee on standing orders against it, it would be usual for the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, or some other member of the government, to support the general authority of committees of the House.' So also if the interests of the public were likely to be injuriously affected by a private Bill, ministers would be justified in using their influence to oppose it;" because they are responsible for exercising the prerogative of the crown so as to control all legislation in Parliament, whether upon public or private matters, for the furtherance of the public welfare. Since the establishment of parliamentary government, the crown has ceased to exercise its undoubted prerogatives, as an essential part of the legislature, by the direct personal intervention of the sovereign. Its legislative powers are now effectually put forth in both Houses, and especially in the House of Commons, by means of responsible ministers, who, availing themselves of the 1 Mirror of Parlt. 1830, p. 2009. n Hans. Deb. vol. clxxv. p. 1545. 177. Sir R. Peel, ibid. vol. lxxx. p. P Case of the Mersey Conservancy. |