such votes. the Sugar duties, and had declared their intention of proceeding with the public business, Sir Robert Peel moved to resolve that 'Her Majesty's ministers do not sufficiently possess the confidence Modern of the House of Commons to enable them to carry through the form of House measures which they deem of essential importance to the public welfare; and that their continuance in office under such circumstances is at variance with the spirit of the constitution.' After a protracted debate, this motion was agreed to by a majority of one. Whereupon, as soon as the necessary business could be completed, a dissolution of Parliament took place. Upon the meeting of the new Parliament, amendments were agreed to, in both Houses, to the Address, to substitute three paragraphs in lieu of others in the Address which had been moved on behalf of ministers. 'The corner-stone of the amendment' was to declare that it was 'essential' that 'the government should possess the confidence of this House and of the country, and respectfully to represent to her Majesty that that confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of her Majesty.' Exception was taken to this motion, by Lord John Russell, that in announcing its opinion in regard to the ministers of the crown, the House 'is bound to state the reason of its proceeding,' and that 'motions of this description have always been founded on facts evidently sufficient to justify the intervention of the House.'d Nevertheless, the adverse amendments being carried in both Houses, by large majorities, the Queen responded with an assurance that she would take 'immediate measures for the formation of a new administration.'e Again, on June 7, 1859,-upon the meeting of a new Parliament after a dissolution to take the sense of the country in regard to Earl Derby's administration, which had been defeated in the House of Commons on the question of Reform,- -an amendment was proposed to the Address in answer to the Speech, in the House of Commons, to add certain words to submit to her Majesty that it is essential that her Majesty's government should possess the confidence of this House and of the country; and respectfully to represent that such confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of her Majesty. This amendment being agreed to, the ministry resigned office.f The House of Commons is constitutionally competent to express, at any time, either its partial disapprobation of a ministry, or its general want of confidence in the d Mirror of Parl. 2nd. Sess. 1841, this case, see ante, vol. i. pp. 131-139. pp. 212, 213. * See ante, vol. i. pp. 154–158. For a more detailed narrative of When a vote of want of is appro priate. The policy and proceedings of the administration. latter, however, is a right which should be sparingly exercised, and reserved for great occasions. A vote of want of confidence, though justifiable under certain confidence circumstances, is open to serious objection if it be hastily or unreasonably entertained for mere party purposes. Moreover, no person has a right to bring forward a resolution of want of confidence, or a vote of censure, in respect to any ministry, unless he is prepared to assume the consequences of such a proceeding, and the res ponsibility of placing the government in a minority. Those consequences would naturally be either a dissolution of Parliament, or that the sovereign would call upon the promoters of the successful attack to assist in the formation of a new ministry.h Votes of censure. A vote of censure upon a particular act or policy of the administration-like a vote of want of confidenceis a matter of vital concern. When passed by the House) of Lords, such a vote, though not necessarily fatal, is, as we have seen, of very great importance, and can only be counterbalanced by the distinct approval of the same! policy by the other House. The formal censure of a ministry, for any act or omission in the exercise of their administrative functions, by the House of Commons, will ordinarily lead to their retirement from office, or to a dissolution of Parliament, unless the act complained of be disavowed, when the retirement of the minister who was especially responsible for it will propitiate the House, and satisfy its sense of justice.* Mr. Disraeli, Hans. Deb. vol. CXXXV. p. 226. Sir G. C. Lewis (Chanc. of Exch.), ibid. vol. cxxxviii. p. 2129. Hearn, Govt. of Eng. p. 219. Stanhope, Life of Pitt, vol. i. p. 190. And see ante, vol. i. p. 212. Upon this principle the leaders of the Conservative party united with the government in opposing a hostile motion submitted to the House of Commons on June 3, 1862, and which the Premier (Lord Palmerston) declared that he should regard as equivalent to a vote of want of confidence. Hans. Deb. vol. clxvii. pp. 349, 386. See also ibid. vol. exci. p. 1902; vol. cxcii. pp. 648, 797, 1035. i See ante, vol. i. p. 28; Hearn, Govt. of Eng. p. 160. Ante, vol. i. p. 133. * See ibid. pp. 267, 426; ante, p. 382. Thus the Coalition ministry resigned, in 1782, on account of a vote of censure by the House of Commons upon the terms of peace with America; the Aberdeen ministry resigned, in 1855, because of the appointment by the House of Commons of a select committee to enquire into the state of the army before Sebastopol, which was regarded by the government as condemnatory of their conduct of the war; the Palmerston ministry appealed to the country, in 1857, against a vote of censure by the House of Commons, in relation to certain proceedings in China. Being sustained upon this occasion by the new Parliament, the ministry were again subjected to a vote of censure, in 1858, in consequence of an objectionable correspondence with the French government in regard to the law for the punishment of conspiracy to murder.o On the other hand, Sir Robert Peel persevered in retaining office, in 1835, notwithstanding a vote of censure which was carried against ministers in the House of Commons, by the insertion of a paragraph in the Address in answer to the Speech at the opening of Parliament, condemning the unnecessary dissolution' of the preceding Parliament. But Sir R. Peel justified this course upon the ground that no minister who is obstructed by a powerful Opposition, upon the first formation of his government, is bound to resign after his first defeat; and that inasmuch as the constitution has conferred upon the sovereign the sole right of nominating his ministers, they were entitled to a fair trial, and should be judged of by their policy and conduct in office.P in Parlia Want of confidence in an administration is not necessa- Defeat of rily expressed only by a vote of censure, or by a distinct ministers resolution to that effect; it may be unequivocally ment. declared in other ways, as by the refusal of the House to follow the lead of ministers upon any particular occasion. In such cases, however, it must rest with the ministry to determine upon what policy or proceeding they will take their stand and what extent of deviation from the course they have advised Parliament to pursue will be regarded as a withdrawal of the confidence heretofore reposed in them by the House. It is in the power of ministers to treat any motion that may be made in the House, even a motion of adjournment, in this way; 4 and q Sir Hugh Cairns, Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxii. p. 1489; and see p. 1856. Votes of confidence. they will sometimes meet a motion on a question of public policy, which was not intended to be a censure on the government, with a declaration that if agreed to by the House, they will consider it as equivalent to a vote of want of confidence." As a general principle, the confidence of the House of Commons in the ministers of the crown should not be asserted by any abstract resolution, but should rather be inferred from the support given by the House to the executive government, and by its mode of dealing with the measures proposed for its consideration by the ministry. There are undoubtedly occasions which would justify a government in asking for an express declaration of confidence from the House of Commons, either in reference to their general policy, or to some particular feature of it; but such occasions are very rare.s A direct vote of confidence may suitably be agreed to by the House of Commons, when the policy or conduct of ministers has been assailed elsewhere, in a manner calculated, unless neutralised by the action of the Commons, to impair their just authority and influence, or to lead to their resignation of office.t On May 3, 1867, a motion was made in the House of Commons, That her Majesty's Government, in refusing the use of Hyde Park for the purpose of holding a political meeting, have asserted the legal right of the crown, and deserve the support of this House in so doing.' Mr. Gladstone, while admitting the duty of the House to respect and support the authority of the crown and of the ministers in the administration of the law, considered it to be beyond the duty of the House to assume responsibility for any step the executive government might take in the exercise of their legal powers, so as to affirm or question the correctness of their judgment. He, therefore, advised that the motion should be withdrawn; a request which the mover, after a short debate, complied with." terial We have next to enquire, how far the inability of Minisministers of the crown to control the course of legislation defeats on on public questions should be taken as an indication that Bills. they had lost the confidence of the House of Commons. It has been already shown that whereas, by modern constitutional practice, ministers are required to initiate Bills upon all questions affecting the public welfare-it being in the power of private members likewise to introduce similar measures-it is customary and expedient that considerable latitude should be granted to the legislative chambers in amending or rejecting the ministerial measures, without it being assumed by any such proceeding that they have withdrawn their confidence in the advisers of the crown." In proof of this position, precedents have been adduced, in the preceding pages, of important public measures brought in by ministers, which were rejected by Parliament," or so amended as to lead to their abandonment.* Also, of Bills of a constitutional character introduced by private members, and carried through one House, notwithstanding the opposition of ministers. But we find no example of any Bill being permitted to pass through both Houses to which ministers were persistently opposed.* Where the opinion of Parliament has been unequivocally expressed in favour of a particular Bill, regardless of objections thereto expressed by ministers, it has been the invariable practice for ministers either to relinquish their opposition, in deference to that opinion, and to lend their aid to carry the measure, with such amendments as might be necessary to conform it to their own ideas of public policy, or else to resign. Every successive administration, 523. See ante, pp. 300-315. b See ante, vol. i. pp. 132, 133, y Ante, pp. 302, 310. Resignation of the Russell min- * Ante, p. 302. Case of the Irish Church Appropriation question, May, Const. Hist. vol. ii. p. 486; and see Earl Russell's comments on this case, Hans. Deb. vol. cxci. p. 1441. p. 145. |