1834. of First Lord of the Treasury, being of opinion that 'nothing would be more unfair than to call upon Sir R. Peel to put himself at the head of a government which another individual should have formed.'m Anxious to place his services at his sovereign's disposal in this difficult crisis, Sir R. Peel unhesitatingly agreed to accept the proffered task, although he 'greatly doubted the policy' which had led to the breaking up of Lord Melbourne's government, and 'entertained little hope that the ministry about to replace it would be a stable one-would command such a majority in the House of Commons as would enable it to transact the public business.' He was well aware that by his acceptance of office he became 'technically, if not morally, responsible for the dissolution of the preceding government, although he had not the remotest concern in it.' He was also fully sensible of the hazard he incurred in meeting a House of Commons wherein his personal followers were in a large minority, with but a doubtful prospect of improving his position by a dissolution of Parliament. Nevertheless he did not shrink from the endeavour to respond to his sovereign's appeal, being persuaded that Parliament would so far maintain the prerogative of the king as to give to the ministers of his choice, not an implicit confidence, but a fair trial." After weighing the counterbalancing advantages of an immediate dissolution of Parliament, or of an attempt to carry on the government, in the first instance, with the existing House of Commons, Sir Robert decided in favour of a dissolution, upon grounds of public policy, which are explained in his memoirs. A new Parliament was accordingly convened for February 19, 1835, but the result of the elections, while it largely increased the number of Conservative members, had failed to place the new ministry in a position of sufficient strength to enable them to carry on the government. At the outset of the session the ministry were defeated on the choice of a Speaker, and upon an amendment to the Address, censuring the dissolution of Parliament. In the debate upon the Address in the Lords, Lord Chancellor Eldon defended the change of ministry, and consequent dissolution of Parliament, on the ground that the previous secession (in May 1834) of four cabinet ministers had so weakened the government, that when Lord Althorp was obliged to vacate his seat and office in the Commons, it became probable that any re-construction 'was not likely to be permanent, but would be liable to be broken up, at a time when it might be productive of much more mischief than the breaking of it up at that moment was calculated to occasion.' In the Commons, Lord John Russell argued the question against the change of ministry with great force and ability, contending that there had been no sufficient cause to justify the exercise of the prerogative in dismissing the late ministry and in dissolving Parliament. He also complained of the new cabinet for not having met Parliament before its dissolution, in order to ascertain whether they would be allowed a fair trial, or be met with a factious Opposition against the opinion of the country; in which case a dissolution. might have been properly advised. It was furthermore contended, by Lords Morpeth and Stanley, that it is the right and privilege of the House of Commons to express its opinion and judgment, and even to offer advice to the sovereign, as to the circumstances under which, and the mode in which, he may have been advised to exercise his undoubted prerogative of choosing the ministers of the crown.' The Opposition, however, confined themselves • Ibid. p. 85. Ibid. p. 74. Knight, vol. viii. p. 355. 1835. 1835. to moving an amendment to the Address in answer to the speech, to represent the regret of the House that the progress of certain important reforms, which had engaged the attention of the late Parliament, should have been interrupted and endangered by the unnecessary dissolution of a Parliament earnestly intent upon the rigorous prosecution of such measures. This amendment was carried against ministers. It elicited a reply from the king, expressing regret that the House did not concur with him as to the policy of the appeal he had recently made to the sense of his people, and expressing a confident trust that the success of no good measures would be injuriously affected thereby. Shortly after this reply was communicated, Sir Robert Peel took an opportunity of informing the House that he did not intend to resign on account of his defeat upon the Address, but should persevere, and submit to the consideration and approval of Parliament the measures contemplated in the speech from the throne." But further defeats awaited him. He was obliged to propose Mr. Bernal for the chair of the Committee of Ways and Means, from inability to secure the election of any one in the confidence of the government. The first diplomatic appointment made by the new ministry, that of the Marquis of Londonderry, as ambassador to the court of St. Petersburg, 'could not have been persisted in,' and was resigned, in consequence of the interference of the House of Commons. In fact, they met with continual hindrance in the conduct of public business, and had not the weight and authority to check, through the opinion and voice of a majority, the vexatious opposition of individual members.' At length, after several minor defeats, they were left in a minority upon a motion of Lord John Russell, in regard to the appropriation of the temporalities of the Irish Church, and the adjustment of the Irish tithe question." Anticipating defeat upon this V Mirror of Parl. 1835, pp 146, 148. Knight, vol. viii. p. 356. important motion, Sir Robert Peel wrote to the king on 1835. March 29, intimating that the pending debate would necessarily assume the ground of want of confidence in the administration. Following upon a succession of votes adverse to the views of ministers, there was a 'great public evil in permitting the House of Commons to exhibit itself to the country free from any control on the part of the executive government, and usurping, in consequence of the absence of that control, many of the functions of the government.' This state of things' might be tolerated so long as there was a rational hope of converting a ministerial minority into a majority, or of making an appeal to the people with a prospect of decided success. But Sir Robert Peel entertained the apprehension that from continued perseverance in the attempt to govern by a minority, it would be difficult for an administration, however composed, to recover a control over the House of Commons; that the House of Commons, having been habituated to the exercise of functions not properly belonging to them, will be unwilling to relinquish it; and that the royal prerogatives and royal authority will inevitably suffer from continued manifestation of weakness on the part of the executive government.' On April 7, Lord John Russell's motion was decided against ministers by a majority of 27. Next day, Sir Robert Peel informed the House that he and his colleagues had resigned office, in consequence of that vote, regarding it as tantamount to a declaration by the House of want of confidence in the government; and believing that, in conformity with the constitution, a government ought not to persist in carrying on public affairs, after a fair trial, against the decided opinion of a majority of the House of Commons;'" notwithstanding that it may enjoy, as upon this occcasion, the confidence X Peel, vol. ii. pp. 91-93. For further explanations by Sir R. Peel of his position at this time, see Mirror of Parl. 1841, sess. 2, pp. 158, 159, ▾ Mirror of Parl. 1835, pp. 817, 818. 1835. 1837. 1839. and favour of the crown, and possess a working majority in the House of Lords." 17. Lord Melbourne's Second Administration.—1835. On April 18, Viscount Melbourne announced in the House of Lords that, by command of the king, he had formed a new administration. Both Houses adjourned until May 12, to enable the ministers in the Commons to go for re-election. No event occurred to affect the stability of this administration until after the death of King William IV., and the accession of Queen Victoria in 1837. Reposing entire confidence in the men whose opinions harmonised with those in which she had been educated, her Majesty continued the Melbourne ministry in office as her constitutional advisers. But on May 6, 1839, the ministry sustained a moral defeat upon their Bill to suspend the constitution of the Island of Jamaica, the second reading of which was made an occasion for a trial of party strength. It was carried by a majority of five only, in a full House. Upon the following day, Lord John Russell informed the House of the resignation of ministers; alleging that it had taken place on account of their not possessing such support in the House of Commons as would enable them efficiently to carry on the public business." Internal weakness, however, was the true ground of their fall. Having attained to power through a combination of parties of the most diverse political aims and aspirations, they were unable to act with vigour and determination. In their attempts to carry out the principle in respect to the Irish Church, by the assertion of which they had driven Sir R. Peel from power, they signally failed. The Whigs had pledged themselves to connect the settlement of the tithe question with the appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Established Mirror of Parl. 1841, p. 2032. Lord John Russell's remarks, in Ibid. 1841, p. 2120. |