to say that he declined to prescribe till he was called in." The peculiar office of the Opposition is doubtless 'to watch with keen eye the conduct of the government they oppose, to see if anything be wrong, or blameable, or liable to criticism therein-to trip them up even before they fall-at all events, if they stumble to mark their stumbling, and call upon them to set things right again.'* 'The originators of measures and inventors of a policy, the individuals who come forward with their schemes and suggestions for public approbation, are not the Opposition, but the Ministers of the Crown; we (the Opposition) stand here to criticise the suggestions and schemes which they bring forward, and which are founded on knowledge wherein we cannot share, and inspired, no doubt, by the feeling of responsibility under which they act."" C sition. As a legitimate Opposition forms the true counter- Leader of poise of the constitution," so the leadership of the the Oppogovernment is suitably reflected in a leadership of the Opposition, by means of which the forces of the opposing party are marshalled and controlled. Without efficient leaders no party organisation can be successful or complete. A leader of Opposition is usually chosen from personal considerations, and for the possession of qualities that point him out as the most fitting man to be appointed to the direction of the state, when his party succeed to power. Meanwhile, he must be able to command the support of his adherents by sagacity in council and promptitude in action. In the words of Lord Bolingbroke, 'people will follow like hounds the man who will show them game;' but a political leader must be prudent as well as energetic." A leader of Opposition should not lend himself to any in relation to the Government. Opposition attempts to thwart unnecessarily the progress of legislation in the hands of ministers; but should rather endeavour to secure, as far as he could for both sides of the House, a fair and free discussion; and when that discussion has been obtained, to facilitate the progress of public business, even if he disapproved of the measures of the government." In proof of the amenities which grace the proceedings of the British Parliament, notwithstanding the keenness and severity of party strife, it is regarded in both Houses as the appropriate duty of the Leader of the Opposition to second any motion proposed by the Leader of the Government, for the adoption of addresses of sympathy or of congratulation to the sovereign, or for giving the thanks of the House to particular individuals for meritorious conduct. Furthermore, it is customary for members of the Opposition who formerly held office to co-operate with ministers in endeavouring to prevent the passing of any measures prejudicial to the public serviee, by affording to the House the benefit of their advice and official experience on the subject. Communications between them. g It is also usual, with a view to the furtherance of legislation in Parliament, for the Leader of the House to communicate freely with members of the Opposition, in order to arrive at an understanding in regard to the conduct of business which will tend to the convenience of members, or to facilitate the settlement of some delicate question, which is not necessarily of a party character." Occasionally, such communications assume a more important aspect, and refer to difficult political questions, in the settlement of which the co-operation of both sides of the House is desirable. Two or three interviews of this description occurred between Pitt and Fox. Mr. Addington consulted Pitt, his predecessor in office, Mr. Disraeli's Rule, in Opposi- Earl Grey. Ibid. vol. cxci. p. tion. Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxii. p. 1860; and see p. 1973. See Yonge, Life of Ld. Liverpool, vol. iii. p. 455. Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxv. p. 814. Ibid. vol. cxciii. pp. 480, 526, 865, 914. 686. Mr. Gladstone's speech on the on various occasions. Mr. Brougham, when in opposition in the House of Commons, 'had communications often and again of the most delicate nature with Lord Castlereagh, with Mr. Canning, and with Mr. Perceval, to the last of whom he was more vehemently opposed even than is usual between those in opposition and the head of a government.'k During Lord Melbourne's Administration, the Duke of Wellington, who then led the opposition in the House of Lords, was in constant communication with government, not only upon 'all military matters, but likewise upon many others.'1 Upon two occasions, in the year 1840, ministers sustained defeats in Parliament, owing to the want of previous concert and understanding with the opposition. One was, in the reduction by the House of Commons of the amount proposed to be voted for an allowance to Prince Albert, upon his marriage with the queen; the other, in the rejection, by the House of Lords, of a clause in Prince Albert's Naturalisation Bill, intended to confer upon him precedence next after the queen. Both these mortifying occurrences might have been avoided by proper communications beforehand, between Lord Melbourne (the Premier) and the leaders of the opposition, such as in after years, under the guidance of the prince himself, were frequently had recourse to, when the question to be settled was one rather of a personal than a political character.' m But in 1834, Mr. Littleton, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, held a confidential communication with Mr. Daniel O'Connell, in regard to the course intended to be pursued by government upon the Irish Coercion Bill, which communication produced no beneficial result, and was afterwards made the occasion of angry debate in Parliament. It was admitted to have been an irregular and imprudent proceeding, undertaken without the previous sanction of the government, and one that imperilled the very existence of the ministry." Mr. Littleton's colleagues afterwards declared that his error consisted, not in the act of holding communication with the great opposition leader, but in the extent to which that communication had been carried." Stanhope, Life of Pitt, vol. iii. pp. 375, 381. Lord Liverpool, in 1815, had several meetings of members of all parties on the subject of the Corn laws.' Yonge, Life of Ld. Liverpool, vol. ii. p. 135. Lord Brougham, Mirror of Parl. 1834, P. 2747. The Duke of Wellington's letter to Lord Stanley, written in 1846, and quoted in the Fortnightly Review, vol. iii. p. 664. The Regency question was settled in 1840, by Questions to Ministers. (e.) Questions put to Ministers, or to private Members, in Parliament, and statements made by Ministers of the Crown. It is the practice,. in both Houses of Parliament, to permit questions to be addressed to ministers of the crown, and to other members, upon matters of public concern. This proceeding is attended with great convenience to members, and is of public advantage, as it affords an opportunity for removing erroneous impressions, and disseminating correct intelligence, upon a variety of topics of general interest. It is also serviceable as superseding the necessity, in many instances, of motions for information; for it may be stated, as a rule, that the proper limit of questions is, whether or no they could be made the subject of a motion.'" The earliest recorded instance of this practice, now so prevalent, occurred in the House of Lords, on February 9, 1721, when the Earl of Sunderland was Prime Minister. Lord Cowper took notice of a report that a certain offender, against whom the House of Lords wished to institute proceedings, and who had absconded, had been arrested abroad, which being a matter in which the public was highly concerned, he desired those in the administration to acquaint the House whether there was any ground for the report.' Whereupon Lord Sunderland stated that the report was true, and explained to the House the mode in which the individual had been captured and secured. An address was then passed praying the king to provide for the return of the offender to England in custody.a Notwithstanding the length of time during which it has been customary to allow such interrogations to be made, and even so as to interrupt the ordinary course of parliamentary procedure, it is only within a very recent period that the practice has been formally recognised and subjected to rule in either House. P Lord John Russell. Hans. Deb. Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 709. vol. iv. p. 384. 22. See Mirror of Parl. 1829, pp. 6, Ibid. 1830, Sess. 2, p. 281; 1830-31, p. 1097; 1833, pp. 32, 2471, 2491. 6 On April 29, 1830, we find the Speaker of the House of Commons ruling that there is nothing in the orders of this House to preclude any member from putting a question, and receiving an answer to it,' and that the proceeding, though not strictly regular, affords great convenience to individuals.' And on the following day, after some objections and explanations, a question was, by courtesy, allowed precedence over an item which had been fixed as the first order of the day. At length, in 1854, upon the occasion of a Manual of the Rules and Orders of the House of Commons being prepared by Mr. May, under the direction of the Speaker," special rules were agreed upon to regulate the time and method of putting and answering questions. By Rule 152 it is provided, that 'before the public business is entered upon, questions are permitted to be put to ministers of the crown, relating to public affairs; and to other members, relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House, in which such members may be concerned." X Notice is usually given of the intention to ask questions of ministers, either by putting a formal notice on the paper," or by a private intimation, and the want of notice has been stated as a sufficient reason for not answering a question," and likewise, because the enquiry has not been directed to the proper minister. But upon urgent occasions, members may assert the right of putting questions without previous notice." In putting any such questions, no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the question." They should be 'See Mirror of Parl. 1830, p. 1428. * Ibid. p. 1449. May, Parl. Prac. ed. 1868, p. 178n. ▾ Revised Rule, ed. of 1859. And see Hans. Deb. vol. cxcii. p. 717. ▾ Mirror of Parl. 1839, p. 120. * Ibid. 1828, pp. 1683, 2369. Ibid. pp. 1515, 1863. Hans. Deb. vol. excii. p. 1231. Commons' Papers, 1852-53, vol. xxv. p. 303. It is not usual to address any question to a minister of the crown upon the first day of a session; but it is sometimes done, even before the speech from the throne is reported. Hans. Deb. vol. cxxx. p. 108. Mirror of Parl. 1833, p. 32; 1839, p. 3. Hans. Deb. vol. cxcii. p. 1755; ibid. v. 193, p. 1539. a Hans. Deb. vol. clxxv. pp. 2030, 2031. Ibid. vol. clxxxiv. pp. 1370, 1385. May, Parl. Prac. ed. 1868, p. 302. b Ibid. Rule No. 153. Hans. Deb. vol. cxciii. p. 520. |