now generally admitted that this dissolution was illadvised, and therefore an objectionable precedent.

Moreover, no minister of the crown should advise a dissolution of Parliament unless he has a reasonable prospect of securing thereby a majority of members in the new House of Commons, who will 'honestly and cordially concur with him in great political principles; ' in other words, unless he entertains a moral conviction that a dissolution will procure him a Parliament' with a decided working majority of supporters.'

'd

Nor is there any constitutional principle which requires that there should be an appeal to the country previous to legislation upon great public questions, even though they may involve organic changes in the constitution itself; for, by the true theory of representation, asserted by the highest authorities and enforced by the uniform practice of Parliament, the actual House of Commons is competent to decide upon any measure that may be necessary for the well-being of the nation.

Nevertheless, after the passing of the Reform Act of 1867, whereby the area of representation was considerably enlarged, it was objected, with great force, that no legislation involving new and important principles ought to be undertaken by the existing Parliament. Under such circumstances, to permit a Parliament

e

May, Const. Hist. vol. i. pp. 126, 127. Edin. Rev. vol. cxv. p. 236. Peel, Memoirs, vol. ii. pp. 294, 297; see also Grey, Parl. Govt. new ed. p. 80; Hearn, Govt. of Eng. p. 156. Upon this ground, Sir R. Peel afterwards declared his belief that the dissolution by the Whigs, in 1841, was unjustifiable; and for the same reason he refused to advise a dissolution upon his own defeat, in 1846. See ante, vol. i. p. 143.

For example, the Septennial Bill of 1716 (see Hallam, Const. Hist. vol. iii. p. 316; Mahon, Hist. of Eng. vol. i. p. 301); the Unions between England and Scotland, and between Great Britain and Ireland (Parl. Hist. vol. xxxv. p. 857); and

the repeal of the Corn laws, in 1846, by a Parliament elected in the interest of their maintenance, were severally enacted without an intermediate dissolution, and the arguments of those who, upon these occasions, urged the necessity for a dissolution, were declared to be ultra democratic,' dangerous,' and 'unprecedented,' by Whig and Tory statesmen alike. Hans. Deb. vol. lxxxiii. p. 33; vol. lxxxiv. p. 464; vol. Ixxxv. pp. 224-226; ibid. vol. exci. p. 930. See also the observations of the Earl of Carnarvon, and of Lord Monck, on the British North America Bill, in 1867. Ibid. vol. clxxxv. pp. 572, 580; and Nova Scotia Assembly Journals, 1866, Appx. No. 10, p 12.

Duty of the sovereign in

respect to

tion.

elected by the old, extinct, and uprooted constituency, to go on making laws, dealing with taxation, and the government of the country, would, it was urged, be quite inconsistent with sound constitutional principle.

A valuable security against the improper exercise of this prerogative is that, before a dissolution can take a dissolu- place, it must be clearly approved of by the sovereign, after all the circumstances shall have been explained to him, and he shall have duly considered them. Upon such an occasion, the sovereign ought by no means to be a passive instrument in the hands of his ministers ; it is not merely his right, but his duty, to exercise his judgment in the advice they may tender to him. And though by refusing to act upon that advice he incurs a serious responsibility, if they should in the end prove to be supported by public opinion, there is perhaps no case in which this responsibility may be more safely and more usefully incurred than when the ministers ask to be allowed to appeal to the people from a decision pronounced against them by the House of Commons.' For they might prefer this request when there was no probability of the vote of the House being reversed by the nation, and when the measure would be injurious to the public interests. In such cases the sovereign ought clearly to refuse to allow a dissolution.'h

In the Session of 1868, the newly appointed ministry of Mr. Disraeli-after sustaining a minor defeat upon a government Bill to transfer certain fines and fees in Ireland to the Consolidated Fundi were defeated, on April 3 and 30, upon a vital question raised by Mr. Gladstone in regard to the disestablishment of the Irish Church. On the ground that this vote had 'altered the relations between her Majesty's government and the present House of Commons,' and required that ministers should consider their position, Mr. Disraeli obtained an adjournment of the House from Thursday to Monday.j On Monday (May 4) both Houses were informed that ministers had

Sir Hugh Cairns, Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxii. p. 1482; Mr. Disraeli, ibid. vol. cxc. p. 1787; vol. cxci. p. 897; Lord Stanley, ibid. p. 501.

• Wellington, in Peel's Memoirs,

vol. ii. p. 300.

h Grey, Parl. Govt. new ed. p. 80. Hans. Deb. vol. cxc. pp. 12271234.

Ibid. vol. cxci. p. 1679.

Parlia

ment in

advised the Queen to dissolve Parliament,' and take the opinion of Dissoluthe country as to the conduct of her ministers, and the question of tion of the Irish Church;' but had also stated, 'that if her Majesty were of opinion that the question at issue could be more satisfactorily settled, 1868. or the just interests of the country more studied, by the immediate retirement' of ministers, they would resign at once. 'Her Majesty was pleased to express her pleasure not to accept the resignation of her ministry, and her readiness to dissolve this Parliament as soon as the state of public business would permit.' Whereupon Mr. Disraeli advised her Majesty that, although the present constituency was no doubt as morally competent to decide upon the question of the disestablishment of the Church as the representatives of the constituency in this House, still it was the opinion of ministers that every effort should be made with a view that the appeal, if possible, should be directed to the new constituency which the wisdom of Parliament created last year;' adding, that if ministers had the cordial co-operation of Parliament, the dissolution might take place in the autumn.k

In the House of Lords, Earl Grey denied the right of ministers, on being defeated in the Commons, to ask the crown for a dissolution of Parliament, unless there was strong reason to believe that the House of Commons had misrepresented the feeling of the country. In reply, it was contended by Lord Chancellor Cairns that the present Parliament, having been elected under a prime minister whose opinions in regard to the Irish Church were known to have been adverse to those recently expressed by a majority of the House of Commons, the vote of the House on that question presented exactly one of those occasions on which ministers might fairly advise a dissolution.1

In the House of Commons, Mr. Disraeli asserted that 'practically it had been held to be the constitutional right of a minister, upon taking office, to advise the crown to dissolve a Parliament elected under the influence of his political opponents;' that the Earl of Derby had waived that right upon his appointment, in 1866, because 'the Parliament itself was then but recently elected, and there were other reasons of gravity and principle which induced him to hope that he might be able to carry on affairs with the present Parliament.' At the close of 1867, Earl Derby, having succeeded in passing the Reform Act, might have claimed the right to take the opinion of the country upon the conduct of ministers in carrying this measure.' But he was deterred from doing so because there were certain supplementary measures connected with the settlement of the Reform question which still remained to be enacted. In the

* Hans. Deb. pp. 1686, 1705, 1794. 1 Ibid. pp. 1687-1689.

present session, Lord Derby resigned, and was replaced in the premiership by Mr. Disraeli, the policy of ministers continuing unchanged. Under these circumstances, Mr. Disraeli claimed that the original right to advise a dissolution of Parliament had devolved upon him. He added, that the approval generally accorded to the administration of public affairs by the new ministry was such, that they felt free to appeal to the country, and had no fear of the result. He had accordingly advised a dissolution upon the question whether or not the Church in Ireland should be disestablished, having a profound conviction that the opinion of the nation does not agree on this subject with the vote of the House of Commons.' m

In reply, Mr. Gladstone denied the right of a ministry to 'inflict' a 'penal' dissolution upon the country, for no other cause than its 'sitting in a Parliament that was called into existence before the ministry itself.' He argued that there were two conditions necessary to justify an appeal to the country by a government whose existence is menaced by an adverse vote in the Commons. The first of them is, that there should be an adequate cause of public policy; and the second of them is, that there should be a rational prospect of a reversal of the vote of the House.' He denied the propriety of a dissolution merely to determine the question whether an administration should continue in office. Admitting the right to dissolve where it was doubtful whether the country would ratify the vote of the House, he contended that the large majorities (of 60 and 65) against ministers on the Irish Church question were 'a sufficient evidence of the judgment of the country.'n

Mr. Gladstone, moreover, protested against a postponement of the dissolution-which, according to precedent, should be immediateto 'the autumn;' ministers meanwhile proposing to submit to the House questions of great constitutional importance. He also declared his intention of following up his resolutions upon the Irish Church with a Bill to suspend appointments therein until after the meeting of the new Parliament."

Other leading members took part in the debate, and vehemently opposed the contemplated delay in the dissolution of Parliament, and the continuance of ministers in office for eight or nine months, until a new Parliament could pass judgment upon them.

Mr. Disraeli, in reply, stated that ministers were willing to abstain from all unavoidable legislation, and to limit themselves to passing the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills, and the Boundary Bills, which would permit of a dissolution in November, with an appeal to the

m Hans. Deb. vol. cxci. pp. 1695– 1702.

" Ibid. pp. 1708-1713.

• Ibid. pp. 1714-1717. For the proceedings upon this Bill, see ante, p. 310.

new constituencies.' But he repudiated the notion that the adverse vote on the Irish Church question-which he believed to have been a conscientious vote on a subject of great importance-was to be regarded as meant 'in any way whatever to imply a general want of confidence in the government.' On such a matter there ought to be no mistake or misunderstanding. 'If you wish to pass a vote of want of confidence, propose one. Let the case be fairly argued, let the House give a deliberate opinion, and let the country judge.' If the Opposition objected to the course proposed by ministers, it would be their duty to propose a vote of this description, which, if carried, would lead to an immediate dissolution. The reason why an immediate dissolution had not been already determined upon was, as everyone knew, because ministers were 'placed, in reference to that point, in circumstances of a peculiar and unprecedented character,' wherein they would endeavour to arrive at some understanding with the House which, while it would facilitate the progress of public business, would be of the greatest advantage to the country.' P But upon this, as upon later occasions, the House showed an evident disinclination to favour the introduction of a vote of want of confidence, and no attempt was made, in either House, during the remainder of the session, to force the ministers out of office by such a method.

Meanwhile, the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills, and the Boundary Bills, were proceeded upon, and ministers were obliged to permit very extensive and important amendments to be made in these measures. Upon one occasion, however, they stood firm, and refused to be responsible for certain amendments which had been carried against them in committee on the Scotch Reform Bill. A compromise was afterwards agreed upon, and the Bill allowed to proceed.r

On May 29, Mr. Disraeli repeated that the government were of opinion that they should expedite the dissolution as much as possible, and confine their legislation,' generally speaking, to that which was necessary;' in other words, ' to the supplementary Reform Bills and the Estimates.' Various government measures would accordingly be dropped. But it was urged that there were special reasons' why the Bribery and Corruption Bill, the Telegraphs Bill, and the Foreign Cattle Importation Bill, should be allowed to proceed, either wholly or partially; although it was admitted that it

▸ Hans. Deb. pp. 1742–1745, 1815. Next day, a discussion arose as to an apparent discrepancy between the terms of the ministerial statement in the House of Commons and that given in the House of Lords, a point which has been noticed in a previous page; see ante, p. 394.

See ibid. p. 1902; vol. cxcii. PP. 648, 797, 1035, 1224; vol. cxxiii. p. 1809.

Ibid. pp. 435, 473, 485, 622, 841. See also the summary of proceedings on these Bills, in the Annual Register for 1868.