accountable for a particular act of public policy, and not merely the minister who had been instrumental in giving effect to the same.' The true doctrine on this Collective subject was afterwards enunciated by the Earl of Derby, responsibility. in the following terms: The essence of responsible government is, that mutual bond of responsibility one for another, wherein a government, acting by party, go together, frame their measures in concert, and where if one member falls to the ground, the others, almost as a matter of course, fall with him.'m Does not personal But the application of this principle would be often partial and insufficient for the ends of justice, were it not extend to for the exception implied in Lord Derby's definition, and miscon which admits of a definite and unqualified responsibility duct. being exclusively attached to a minister of the crown, who is proved to have done anything which renders him personally liable to the censure of Parliament, or to punishment by legal process." While the general responsibility of the whole administration would not suffice to screen. such an one from the consequences of his own misdeeds, neither would it necessarily follow that his colleagues should be made accountable for the wrongful acts of a minister in a matter which peculiarly concerned his own department, unless they voluntarily assumed a share of the responsibility, or were proved to have been implicated therein. The following are the leading cases of complaints in Parliament in reference to the misconduct of particular ministers. In none of these cases, did the administration interpose to prevent enquiry; nor did they venture to 1 Parl. Deb. vol. vi. pp. 310–327. And see the debates in the House of Commons on July 9, 1782, when a particular act of the late ministry having been questioned, Mr. Fox himself said that he had been one of that ministry, and although he was not the person in whose department it lay to advise the king on the sub ject, still he held himself responsible m Hans. Deb. vol. cxxxiv. p. 834. Cases of com plaints against a minister. assume responsibility for the acts alleged to have been committed; wherefore the censure of Parliament was confined, or, as the case might be, its investigations limited upon each occasion, to the conduct of the individual minister, without any attempt being made to affix any portion of the blame upon his colleagues. In 1805, Lord Melville, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, was impeached by the House of Commons for certain irregularities committed while holding the office of Treasurer of the Navy. After the criminatory vote had been agreed to by the House, Lord Melville resigned his ministerial office. It was nevertheless deemed expedient to erase his name from the list of Privy Councillors; although he was afterwards acquitted of the charges preferred against him. On May 14, 1806, resolutions were moved in the House of Commons, charging the Earl of St. Vincent with negligence, misconduct, and dereliction of duty, whilst he held the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, which he had resigned two years previously. The charges were discussed on their merits, and it appearing that they were quite unfounded, they were negatived without a division. Whereupon Mr. Secretary Fox proposed a vote of thanks to Earl St. Vincent for his naval administration, which was agreed to.P In 1809, H.R.H. the Duke of York was charged with conniving at the corrupt sale of military commissions, and though exculpated after enquiry by the House of Commons, he resigned his office. In 1810, the Earl of Chatham, who commanded the unfortunate Walcheren Expedition, and who was also a Cabinet minister, was censured by the House of Commons for having irregularly and unconstitutionally reported directly to the king, in regard to that expedition, instead of transmitting his report through the proper channel.r In 1825, Lord Chancellor Eldon's delays in adjudicating upon cases before the Court of Chancery gave rise to a motion in the House of Commons for a return of the causes pending 'during the last eighteen years, wherein judgment has not yet been given,' which was allowed to pass, though it gave great offence to the Chancellor, who 'almost came to a determination,' after disposing of these arrears, to resign his office. This investigation led to the introduction, by ministers, of a Bill to expedite proceedings in Chancery, and stimulated Lord Eldon to greater activity, without occasioning any ministerial difficulties. In 1844, Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary, complained to the House of Commons of remarks made by a member of the House in a speech delivered at Leeds, which reflected injuriously upon his personal conduct as a member of Parliament and of the Government. Upon the advice of Sir Robert Peel, the Leader of the House, the complaint was fully investigated, after which, resolutions, declaring that the charges were unfounded and calumnious, were agreed to by the House.t During a debate in the House of Commons on March 11, 1845, on the affairs of New Zealand, a charge was preferred against Lord Stanley, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, by a member, connected with and representing the New Zealand Company, to the effect that his lordship, after agreeing to a certain arrangement with the Company, in 1843, and undertaking to give Instructions to the Governor of New Zealand in accordance therewith, had afterwards transmitted secret Instructions to the Governor which were entirely inconsistent with his previous engagement to the Company." It was agreed that an opportunity should be afforded to the Colonial Secretary of rebutting this accusation. Accordingly, on March 18, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies (Lord Stanley being a peer), on a motion for papers, entered into full explanations in vindication of his chief. From the debate which ensued it was evident that the House acquitted the Colonial Secretary 'of any intention to deceive, or of any actual deception.' ▾ On February 29, 1864, the attention of the House was called to a recent trial in Paris of certain Italians for a conspiracy to assassinate the Emperor of the French, at which the name of Mr. Stansfeld, a member of the House, and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, was mentioned as having been in personal communication with some of the conspirators. Mr. Stansfeld warmly rebutted the implication, and expressed his abhorrence of the crime. Nevertheless, on March 17 it was moved to resolve That the statement of the Procureur-Général on the trial of Greco, implicating a member of this House and of her Majesty's Government, in the plot for the assassination of our ally the Emperor of the French, deserves the serious consideration of this House.' After much debate, the motion was negatived by a majority of ten. But this having been Com. Journals, vol. xcix. pp. 235, 239. Hans. Deb. vol. lxxiv. pp. 236, 299-308. Hans. Deb. vol. lxxviii. p. 645. * Ibid. pp. 896, 1094–1137. ▾ Ibid. vol. clxxiii. p. 1255, and see ibid. P. 1931. Ibid. vol. clxxiv. pp. 250-283. Mr. Stansfeld was present in the House during this debate, and voted against the motion. This proceeding was afterwards commented upon, but the Speaker decided that it was no infringement of the rule forbidding the vote of a member upon a question in which he was peculiarly interested. Ibid. P. 340. Complaints covered evidently a party vote, it was generally supposed that Mr. Stansfeld, considering the position wherein by an act of indiscretion he had placed the House and the Government, should have resigned. It appeared, however, that at the outset of the enquiry he had placed his office at the disposal of the crown, but that the Premier (Lord Palmerston) had refused to accept of his resignation. This occasioned another debate. At the next sitting of the House, Mr. Stansfeld announced that, having become convinced that he had ceased to bring strength to the Government, and fearing that he might prove a source of difficulty and a cause of embarrassment to them, he had resigned his office. He then proceeded to give satisfactory explanations as to his former conduct. He was followed by Lord Palmerston, who spoke in high praise of Mr Stansfeld, and declared that his resignation, which was much regretted, had been entirely voluntary. The matter was then dropped.z In the following cases, the ministry assumed entire responsibility for the proceedings complained of; and the by collec- question was accordingly dealt with by the House as one of confidence in the administration. tive responsibility. On September 4, 1835, Mr. Hume submitted to the House of Commons a series of resolutions, condemnatory of the terms upon which the late West Indian Compensation Loan had been contracted by Mr. Spring Rice, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; whereby, as he alleged, a serious loss had been sustained by the public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose immediately and entered into an elaborate defence of the transaction; admitting, however, that it was one on which the House ought to look with extreme attention, if not with some jealousy,' that he had no right to complain of the present motion; and that if it were substantiated, it should be followed up by an address to the king to remove him as well from the office he held as from his councils for ever. He concluded his defence by moving, 'That the terms on which the said loan had been contracted were such as to afford the most satisfactory proof of the public credit of the British Empire.' Having undertaken to refer Mr. Hume's resolutions to an eminent y Hans. Deb. vol. clxxiv. p. 322. Ibid. pp. 396-401. See also the circumstances, already stated, attending the resignation by Mr. Lowe, in 1864, of the Vice-presidency of the Education Committee of the PrivyCouncil, in vindication of his personal honour,' which he considered to have been impugned by a resolu 6 tion of the House of Commons (ante, vol. i. p. 267). Also, the resignation of Lord Chancellor Westbury, in 1866, upon the passing of a resolution by the House of Commons, which imputed to him a laxity of practice and a want of caution with regard to the public interests' in his capacity of Lord Chancellor. Ibid. p. 426. accountant and calculator, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's amendment was agreed to without a division.a On March 6, 1838, Sir William Molesworth moved, in the House of Commons, an address to the queen to declare that (Lord Glenelg) the present Secretary of State for the Colonies did not enjoy the confidence of the House or of the country, being deficient in the qualities of 'diligence, forethought, judgment, activity, and firmness.' Ministers at once met this motion by asking the House to consider it, with them, as an attack on the Government generally; for 'in this country, the Government is not an administration of separate and distinct departments; but, as is well known, the measures of each department are submitted to the consideration of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet is responsible in its individual capacity for the policy of each department, though the execution of the measures may rest with the departments themselves. After a long debate on the colonial policy of the Government, the motion was negatived on division.c In the sessions of 1844 and 1845, complaints were made to the House of Commons by Mr. T. S. Duncombe against Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary, for an alleged arbitrary and illegal exercise of power in causing certain letters to be opened at the Post Office. Committees of secrecy were appointed by both Houses (that of the Commons being proposed by Sir James Graham himself) to enquire into the matter, but it appeared by their reports that nothing had been done by the Home Secretary abusively, or without legal warrant. Attempts were then made in both Houses to obtain the consent of Parliament to an amendment of the law, so as to prohibit the continuance of the practice. But ministers, while consenting to enquiry, justified the conduct of the Home Secretary, and assumed entire responsibility for the same.d On June 17, 1850, a resolution, proposed by Lord Stanley, was agreed to by the House of Lords, censuring the policy of the Government in relation to Greece. This resolution was especially aimed at the conduct of Lord Palmerston, the Foreign Secretary. It was met by a counter-resolution, agreed to by the House of Commons after a protracted debate, approving of that policy. The defence was principally undertaken by Lord Palmerston, whose speech on this occasion is said to have been one of the finest ever delivered in Parliament. Of this debate, Mr. Disraeli (as a leader 2952. Mirror of Parl. 1835, pp. 2946 Lord Palmerston, Mirror of Parl. 1838, p. 2429. Ibid. pp. 2415, 2530; see Sir R. Peel's comments on this case, ibid. 1839, p. 1722, and Hans. Deb. vol. cl. p. 582. d Hans. Deb. vol. lxxv. pp. 892, 974, 1264; vol. lxxvi. p. 311; vol. lxxvii. pp. 668, 834, 932; vol. lxxix. p. 307; vol. lxxx. p. 1033; Commons' Papers, 1844, vol. xiv. pp. 501, 505; and see Broom, Const. Law, p. 616; May, Const. Hist. vol. ii. p. 294. e Hans. Deb. vol. cxi. p. 1332; vol. cxii. pp. 107, 380, 739. |