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. arrange Duke of ton. The Duke of Wellington advised his Majesty that Temporary the difficult task of forming a new administration, ments unshould be entrusted to Sir Robert Peel. But such der the had been the suddenness of the king's resolution, that WellingSir Robert, wholly unprepared for any political changes, was then at Rome. The duke, however, promptly met this difficulty by accepting the office of first lord of the Treasury himself, until Sir Robert Peel's arrival. He also held the seals of one of his Majesty's principal secretaries of state, which, as there was no other secretary,-constituted his grace secretary for the home, the foreign and the colonial departments. His sole colleague was Lord Lyndhurst, who was entrusted with the great seal: but still retained the office of Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer. This assumption of the government by a single man, while Parliament was not sitting,-avowedly for the purpose of forming an administration from a party whose following comprised less than a fourth of the House of Commons',-presented an unpromising view of constitutional government, after the Reform Act. In defence of this concentration of offices, the precedent of the Duke of Shrewsbury was cited, who, in 1 Sir Robert Peel himself admitted that he could not have depended upon more than 130 votes.— Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxvi. 224, the last days of Queen Anne, had held the several offices of Lord High Treasurer, Lord Chamberlain, and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. But the critical emergency of that occasion scarcely afforded an example to be followed, except where some public danger is to be averted. The queen was upon her death-bed: the succession was disputed,-a civil war was impending, -and the queen's ministers had been in secret correspondence with the Pretender. At such a time of peril, any means of strengthening the executive authority were justifiable: but to resort to a similar expedient, when no danger threatened the state, merely for the purpose of concerting ministerial arrangements and party combinations,—if justifiable on other grounds, -could scarcely be defended on the plea of precedent. Its justification, if possible, was rather to be sought in the temporary and provisional nature of the arrangement. The king, having dismissed his ministers, had resolved to entrust to Sir Robert Peel the formation of another ministry. The accident of that statesman's absence deferred, for a time, the carrying out of his Majesty's resolution; and the Duke of Wellington, in the interval, administered the executive business of several departments of the government, in the same manner as outgoing ministers generally undertake its administration, until their successors are appointed. The provisional character of this inter-ministerial government was shown by the circumstances stated by the duke himself, "that during the whole time he held the seals, there was not a single office disposed of, nor an act done, which was not essentially necessary for the service of the king, and of the country."" That it was 1 Hansard's Deb., 3rd Ser., xxvi. 224. 2 Duke of Wellington's Explana tions, Feb. 24, 1835; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxvii. 85. an expedient of doubtful and anomalous character,— which, if drawn into precedent, might be the means of abuses dangerous to the state,-could scarcely be denied: but as the duke had exercised the extraordinary powers entrusted to him, with honour and good faith, his conduct, though exposed to invective, ridicule, and caricature1, did not become an object of parliamentary censure. Such was the temper of the House of Commons, that had the duke's" dictatorship," —as it was called,-been more open to animadversion, it had little to expect from their forbearance. If any man could have accomplished the task which the king had so inconsiderately imposed upon his minister, Sir Robert Peel was unquestionably the man most likely to succeed. He perceived at once the impossibility of meeting the existing House of Commons, at the head of a Tory administration; and the king was therefore advised to dissolve Parliament. Sir Robert Peel as pre mier, 1834. the respon acts. So completely had the theory of ministerial respon- Assumes sibility been now established, that, though Sir Robert sibility of Peel was out of the realm when the late ministers the king's were dismissed, though he could have had no cognizance of the causes which induced the king to dismiss them, though the Duke of Wellington had been invested with the sole government of the country, without his knowledge, he yet boldly avowed that, by accepting office after these events, he became constitutionally responsible for them all,-as if he had himself advised them.2 He did not attempt, like the ministers of 1807, to absolve himself from censure for the acts of the crown, and at the same time to denounce the criticism of Parliament, as an arraignment of the 1 H. B. represented the duke, in 2 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxvi. 216, multiform characters, occupying 223. every seat at the Council Board. The new personal conduct of the king: but manfully accepted the full responsibility which had devolved upon him. The minister could scarcely have expected to obtain ment, 1835. a majority in the new Parliament: but he relied upon the reaction in favour of Tory principles, which he knew to have commenced in the country, and which had encouraged the king to dismiss Lord Melbourne. His party was greatly strengthened by the elections: but was still unequal to the force of the opposition. Yet he hoped for forbearance, and a "fair trial;" and trusted to the eventual success of a policy as liberal, in its general outline, as that of the Whigs. But he had only disappointments and provocations to endure. A hostile and enraged majority confronted him in the House of Commons,-comprising every section of the "liberal party," "-and determined to give him no quarter. He was defeated on the election of the Speaker, where at least he had deemed himself secure; and again upon the address, when an amendment was voted condemning the recent dissolution as unnecessary1; and, -not to mention minor discomfitures,-he was at length defeated on a resolution, affirming that no measure on the subject of tithes in Ireland would be satisfactory, that did not provide for the appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Irish Church.2 Efforts of Peel. These few weeks formed the most brilliant episode in Sir Robert Peel's distinguished parliamentary career. He combined the temper, tact, and courage of a great political leader, with oratory of a higher order than he had ever previously attained. He displayed all the 1 It lamented that the progress of "reforms should have been interrupted and endangered by the unnecessary dissolution of a Parliament earnestly intent upon the vigorous prosecution of measures, to which the wishes of the people were most anxiously and justly directed."-Com. Journ., xc. 8. Hans. Deb., xxvi., 3rd Ser., 26, 151, 410, 425. 2 Com. Journ., xc. 208. great qualities by which Mr. Pitt had been distinguished, in face of an adverse majority, with a more conciliating temper, and a bearing less haughty. Under similar circumstances, perhaps, his success might have been equal. But Mr. Pitt had still a dissolution before him, supported by the vast influence of the crown: Sir Robert Peel had already tried that venture, under every disadvantage: he found the king's confidence a broken staff, and no resource was left him, but an honourable retirement from a hopeless struggle.1 nation. He resigned, and Lord Melbourne's government, with His resigsome alterations, was reinstated. The stroke of prero- Causes of gative had failed; and its failure offers an instructive his failure. illustration of the effects of the Reform Act, in diminishing the ascendant influence of the crown. In George the Third's time, the dismissal of a ministry by the king, and the transfer of his confidence to their opponents,-followed by an appeal to the country,— would certainly have secured a majority for the new ministers. Such had been the effect of a dissolution in 1784, after the dismissal of the coalition ministry : such had been the effect of a dissolution in 1807, on the dismissal of Lord Grenville. But the failure of this attempt to convert Parliament from one policy to another, by the prerogative and influence of the crown, proved that the opinion of the people must now be changed, before ministers can reckon upon a conversion of Parliament. It is true that the whole of these proceedings had been ill advised on the part of the king, even in the interests of the party whom he was anxious to serve but there had been times within the memory of many statesmen then living, when equal indiscretion would not have incurred the least risk of defeat. 1 See Peel's Mem., ii. 44-48; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 211. VOL. I. K |