impossible, to induce any one to take their places, and assume the responsibility of his act. Notwithstanding the criminatory evidence obtained against the princess in 1806, and again in 1819, ministers determined to take no active measures against her unless she should obtrude herself upon public notice by demanding to be regarded as Queen of England. She imprudently decided upon this course, and in the summer of 1820 left the continent, where she had been residing for several years, and made her appearance in London, for the purpose of prosecuting her claims. On the day of her arrival in London, a message from the king was presented to both houses, communicating certain papers respecting the conduct of her Majesty since her departure from the kingdom, and recommending them to the immediate and serious attention of Parliament. In the House of Lords, on motion of Lord Liverpool (the prime minister), these papers were referred to a committee of secrecy, upon whose report a Bill of Pains and Penalties for the degradation of the queen, and for her divorce from her husband, was introduced by his lordship. After evidence taken at the bar, the second reading of this Bill was carried by a majority of 28. In committee a motion was made to expunge the divorce clause, which, though unsuccessful, was voted for by all the ministers present, nine in number. By this proceeding they preserved their consistency, and maintained their independence of the personal influence of the king. On November 10, the third reading of the Bill was carried by a majority of nine only; whereupon Lord Liverpool arose, and announced that the measure would be abandoned. In the state of excitement which prevailed throughout the country on the question, and the feeling which existed against the king, the attempt to carry the Bill through the House of Commons, after such a close division in the Lords, would have been most disastrous, and would probably have resulted in the overthrow of the administration, whose popularity had been already diminished by the degree of assistance they had rendered to the king on this occasion.' the Reform The reign of William IV. has been rendered memorable William by the passing of the Reform Bill; a measure to which IV. and the king was at first opposed, but which was ultimately Bill carried through Parliament with a high hand by his own personal exertions. Impressed with the necessity for Reform, to save the country from revolution, and to avert the perils anticipated by the defeat of the Bill in the House of Lords, the ministry extorted from the king a pledge to create a sufficient number of peers to turn the scale in favour of Reform; but a dread of the consequences of such an arbitrary proceeding induced the king, without the knowledge of his ministers, to cause a circular letter to be addressed to the Opposition peers, urging upon them to drop all further resistance to the Bill, so that it might pass without delay, and as nearly as possible without alteration." This unconstitutional interference with the independent deliberations of the House of Lords was even more irregular and unsound in principle than the creation of additional peers; but it was a less obvious evil, and it had the desired effect." Bill. The Reform Bill became law, through the active inter- Effects of position of the crown, and with the reluctant assent of the Reform the House of Lords. It has effected an important revolution in the English political system. Professedly based upon a careful adherence to the acknowledged principles of the constitution, by which the prerogatives of the crown, the authority of both Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people, are equally secured,' it has contributed, in its consequences, to increase the For a succinct narrative of all the proceedings in this memorable case, both in and out of Parliament, see Sir G. C. Lewis's article in Edinb. Rev. vol. cix. pp. 162-173, 188-196. Roebuck's Hist. of the Whig Ministry, vol. ii. pp. 331, 334. VOL. I. F May's Hist. vol. i. p. 120. The king's speech at the opening of Parliament, in June 1831. And see Earl Russell's comments thereon, in the new edition of his Essay on the English Const., Introd. p. lii. power of the House of Commons, not only by lessening the aristocratic influence of the proprietors of close boroughs, but also by diminishing the strength of the crown in that assembly. The disfranchisement of constituencies, in England alone, which formerly returned 143 members, the distribution of seats to various localities hitherto unrepresented, and the general extension of the franchise, have been the means of emancipating a large proportion of voters from the direct influence of the landed gentry, and of introducing into the House of Commons a body of independent members, who cannot be relied upon as the staunch supporters of any political party, but who think and act for themselves. This has brought about a silent but material change in the relations between Parliament and the ministers of the crown. The stable administrations of former days have passed away, and no government can now expect to continue in office by dint of mere party strength. The House of Commons has become ingly diffi- more difficult to control, from the lack of a sufficient control the number of members upon whose support an existing Commons, ministry could generally depend, and from the necessity of conciliating the goodwill of divers important and independent interests, which are now represented therein.' Nevertheless, as we have already remarked,* the influence of the great governing families of England,' though materially reduced, is still powerful over many constituencies. And while the representation of the people has been made more direct and efficient, rank and hereditary property have been permitted to retain a fair proportion of legitimate influence in that chamber which has become the source and centre of political authority. To this we owe it that the complex machinery of parliamentary government has continued in successful operation, and that the House of Commons has been hitherto preserved from the evil effects of democratic ascendancy. Increas cult to House of See Edinb. Rev. vol. xcv. p. 225. See May, Const. Hist. vol. i. p. 355, vol. ii. p. 84. Two years after the passing of the Reform Bill, the prerogatives of the crown were again called into activity, in a manner which seemed to revive the political history of 1784. Lord Grey's government had lost the confidence of the king. The retirement of several members of the cabinet on the question of the appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Church of Ireland excited the apprehension of the king as to the safety of the Irish Church, and, without consulting his ministers, he gave public expression to his alarm, in replying to an address of the prelates and clergy of Ireland." 'The ministry, enfeebled by the loss of their colleagues, by disunion, and other embarrassments, soon afterwards resigned; notwithstanding that they continued to command a large majority in the House of Commons. They were succeeded by Lord Melbourne's administration, which differed little in material politics and parliamentary strength. But this administration was distasteful to the king, who had, meantime, become a convert to the political opinions of the Opposition.'" ministers IV. Taking advantage of the removal of Lord Althorp Dismissal from the leadership of the House of Commons, and from of his the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, owing to his by William accession to a peerage by the death of his father, the king suddenly dismissed his ministers, and consulted the Duke of Wellington upon the formation of a government from the Tory party, who were in a decided minority in the House of Commons. The propriety of this act has been questioned by May, for the reason that all the usual grounds for dismissing a ministry were wanting. There was no immediate difference of opinion between them and the king upon any measure or question of public policy; there was no disunion among themselves, nor were there any indications that they had lost the confidence of Parliament. But the accidental removal of a single minister-not necessarily even from the govern An. Reg. 1824, p. 43. n May, Const. Hist. vol. i. p. 120. Ministry of Sir R. Peel, in 1834. ment, but only from one House of Parliament to the other-was made the occasion for dismissing the entire administration. It is true that the king viewed with apprehension the policy of his ministers in regard to the Irish Church; but his assent was not then required to any specific measure of which he disapproved, nor was this the ground assigned for their dismissal. The right of the king to dismiss his ministers was unquestionable; but constitutional usage has prescribed certain conditions under which this right should be exercised. It should be exercised solely in the interests of the state, and on grounds which can be justified to Parliament-to whom, as well as to the king, the ministers are responsible. But here it was not directly alleged that the ministers had lost the confidence of the king; and so little could it be affirmed that they had lost the confidence of Parliament that an immediate dissolution was counselled by the new administration. The act of the king bore too much the impress of his personal will, and too little of those reasons of state policy by which it should have been prompted; but its impolicy was so signal as to throw into the shade its unconstitutional character.'" The Duke of Wellington advised that the formation of the new administration should be entrusted to Sir Robert Peel; and as that statesman was abroad at the time, he himself accepted the office of First Lord of the Treasury, together with the seals of office as Secretary of State, which, there being no other secretary, constituted his grace Secretary for the Home, Foreign, and Colonial Departments. Upon the arrival of Sir R. Peel, he immediately waited upon the king, and accepted the proffered charge. And 'so completely had the theory of ministerial responsibility been now established that, though Sir R. Peel was out of the realm when the late ministers were dismissed May, Const. Hist. vol. i. pp. 122, 123. |