Indiscreet language certain Bill, afterwards opposed the measure in Parliament, because 'the authorities in Ireland' disapproved of the measure.1 In 1866, Sir Roundell Palmer (Attorney-General), in debate on the Government Reform Bill, with respect to the Savings Bank Franchise in that measure, took the liberty of saying that he regarded it as "by no means the best part of the proposal of the Government, "m which, as he afterwards remarked, ' was as much as saying that, as far as he individually could, he disapproved of it.' Commenting upon a similar proposition in the Reform Bill of the Derby Ministry, in 1867, Sir R. Palmer (being then in opposition) characterised it as 'utterly wrong in principle, and untenable and unsettling in practice.' n Cabinet ministers, however, do not hold themselves by minis responsible for the language of subordinate members of the government. ters. Thus, in the debate on the Reform Bill, on September 21, 1831, the Solicitor-General for Ireland gave utterance to an unconstitntional dogma, in regard to the power of the crown, in conjunction with the House of Commons, to disfranchise boroughs, without reference to the House of Lords. This assertion occasioned great excitement, and ministers were called upon to disavow it. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Althorp), while repudiating the sentiment, said he did not think it just, or fair, or candid, or according to the customs and usages of this House, to make the government responsible for any statement which may, in the course of a debate, be made by gentlemen who are not members of the Cabinet.' Hans. Deb. vol. clxxi. p. 382. Mirror of Parl. 1831, pp. 2312- references made to a speech by Mr. Gladstone, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the recess of 1862, upon American affairs, wherein he declared that President Davis had not only created an army, but made a nation,' an observation which was 'regretted' by his colleagues, and explained away to the United States Minister in London. Ibid. vol. clxxiii. p. 148; vol. clxxxii. p. 1164; vol. clxxxiii. p. 108. Lord Campbell says: 'It is remarkable that there is hardly any public man who has not, at some time or other, indiscreetly used some expression which has passed into a by-word against him." He mentions the well-known instances of Lord Melbourne's 'heavy blow and great discouragement to the Church,' Lord John Russell's parlia In order to enable ministers to carry on the government Ministers in harmony and agreement with Parliament, without their require a being subjected to the degradation of becoming the mere mentary majority. tools of a democratic assembly, it is necessary that they should be sustained by an adequate majority in both Houses, and especially in the House of Commons. This advantage is ordinarily secured to them through the agency of party. Whichever political party predominates in the nation, and in the legislature, presumably selects its best men to be its leaders and representatives. The sovereign having chosen from amongst such those whom she is willing to appoint to be her councillors and administrators, the interests of party and of the state alike demand that they should receive from Parliament a generous support; and that so long, at least, as the House of Commons continues to repose confidence in them, they should be permitted to advise and influence the deliberations of Parliament, with the authority that belongs to their office as Ministers of the Crown. Relying upon the judgment and discretion of the men to whom both crown and Parliament have agreed that the direction of public affairs should be entrusted, the legislative chambers should be willing to receive with favour whatever measures the ministry may deem it expedient to submit for their sanction; and they should be slow to impede or interfere with the action of ministers in executive matters, otherwise than by the free criticism and promptness to demand the redress of all manifest grievances, which is the inherent prerogative of Parliament. members. The attendance of members who are known to be sup- Attendporters of government is specially invited by circulars ance of from the Secretary of the Treasury, issued shortly before the opening of Parliament, and occasionally during a session when important divisions are anticipated. Upon a 'finality of the Reform Bill,' Lord Lyndhurst's 'aliens in blood, language, and religion,' and an unlucky speech of his own, in which he said, that the right of freemen to vote Decline of party con trol. particular emergency, the leader of the House himself will address his supporters in this way. Similar circulars are issued, from time to time, on behalf of the Opposition." Prior to the Reform Act of 1832, and until the repeal of the Corn Laws by Sir Robert Peel's ministry in 1846, party organisation seldom failed to secure an adequate support in Parliament for the existing administration.' But the rapid and entire change of opinion which was exhibited by Sir Robert Peel in the settlement of that question, a change which he refrained from communicating beforehand even to the leading members of the Conservative party, gave a shock to the old system of party government from which it has never fully recovered; thereby rendering the repeal of the Corn Laws a landmark not only in our economical, but also in our constitutional history. Added to which, as the other great questions which of old divided the Whigs and Tories into hostile camps were disposed of, and as the bulk of the nation. began, in consequence of the spread of education, to take a deeper interest in matters of political concern, the number of independent members has naturally and inevitably increased, until it has become exceedingly difficult for any party to secure a reliable working majority in the House of Commons. It is, however, foreign to the inten P Yonge, Life of Ld. Liverpool, vol. ii. p. 249. Mirror of Parl. 1835, p. 2803. Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxvi. p. 1684. Grey, Parl. Govt. new edit. p. 226. Walsh, Results of Reform Act of 1832, pp. 93, 150. * See Peel's Memoirs, vol. ii. pp. 318-324. Quar. Review, vol. cxii. p. 372. See Hare, Election of Representatives, edit. of 1865, pp. 235237, in which will be found the experience of the late Sidney Herbert of the effect of the decline of party control in the House of Commons. The extent to which the old system of subordination to party leaders was sometimes carried, may be inferred from the humorous description of an old Scotch county member, who was a staunch supporter of Mr. Pitt, and of whom it was said that his invariable rule was never to be present at a debate, or absent at a division, and that he only once, during the course of his long political life, ventured to vote according to his conscience, and that he found on that occasion he had voted wrong." (Mirror of Parl. Sept. 23, 1831, p. 2376.) Edmund Burke used to define an independent member of Parliament as a member that no one could depend upon; but this is a definition which would find no favour with legislators at the present day. See Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxii. pp. 923, 926. tion of the present writer to enlarge upon this topic, or to speculate upon the means of remedying the undeniable evils attendant upon a weak government. He professes to deal with facts and not with theories; and it has been his aim to limit himself strictly to the purpose in hand. He is now seeking simply to direct attention to the facilities afforded under constitutional government, for the free expression of the opinion of Parliament upon all ministerial acts, as well as upon all legislative measures; and to set forth the reasons which entitle Ministers of the Crown to expect from Parliament either a cordial support or a fair trial. sition. And here it will be appropriate to advert to a feature The Oppoin our political system, which began to be developed contemporaneously with the establishment of parliamentary government, and which has materially contributed to the vigour and efficiency of the same-namely, the presence in both Houses of an organised Opposition. The political party of which the administration for the time being is the mouthpiece and representative, is invariably confronted in Parliament by another party, who themselves expect to succeed to power, whenever they acquire sufficient strength to overthrow their antagonists, and to assume the responsibilities of office. Acting upon well-defined principles, and within the strict lines of the Constitution, to which they profess an equal attachment to that exhibited by its official defenders, the adherents of this party have been aptly styled Her Majesty's Opposition,' and although the propriety of this designation has been disputed, yet it. may be understood as implying that loyalty to queen and constitution which should distinguish alike all parties in the Great Council of the nation. Their functions. The Opposition exercise a wholesome influence upon parliamentary debate, and upon the conduct of the business of the crown in Parliament, for they are the constitutional critics of all public affairs;" and whatever course the government may pursue, they naturally endeavour to find some ground for attack. It is the function of an Opposition to state the case against the administration; to say everything which may plausibly be said against every measure, act, or word of every member of the ministry; in short to constitute a standing censorship of the government, subjecting all its acts and measures to a close and jealous scrutiny." But while Parliamentary Opposition affords a valuable security against the misconduct of a Government, it is liable to abuse, and may easily be perverted to factious and unpatriotic issues. It may be made the vehicle for personal acrimony and false accusation. It may pander to the popular passions for selfish or sectional ends. It is mainly kept in check by two considerations. Firstly, that its own proceedings are reviewed and criticised by the constituent body, aided by the free comments of the public press. Secondly, that in the event of success attending the endeavours of its leaders to replace the existing government, they must, for the sake of consistency, give practical effect in office to the policy they advocated in opposition. The view of this contingency exercises a sobering effect upon the character of an Opposition, and tends to keep it within the bounds of moderation." Thus, as the hope of acquiring office reduces the bitterness of opposition, so the fear of a compulsory acceptance limits its extravagance." It is an old maxim, that the duty of an Opposition is very simple, it is to oppose everything, and propose nothing.' And in the same spirit, Sir Robert Peel used |