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.” 1

Dismissal of his ministers

in 1834.

Taking advantage of the removal of Lord Althorp from the leadership of the House of Commons, and from the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, owing by William IV. to his 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 government, 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 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

May, Const. Hist. v. 1, p. 120.

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."

1

The Duke of Wellington advised that the formation of the new administration should be entrusted to Sir Ministry of Robert Peel; and, as that statesman was abroad Sir R. Peel, at the time, he himself accepted the office of first in 1834. 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. Ánd "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-though he could have had no cognisance 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 personal conduct of the king, but manfully accepted the full responsibility which had devolved upon him.3

A dissolution of parliament was at once determined upon;

1 May, Const. Hist. v. 1, pp. 122, 123; and see Trevelyan, Life of Macaulay, v. 2, p. 54.

2 Hans. D. 3rd ser. v. 26, pp. 216, 223.

3 May, v. I, p. 125

its result proved, upon the whole, unfavourable to Sir R. Peel, for, although his own supporters were largely increased, yet a majority against his ministry was returned. For a while he endeavoured, with great tact and consummate ability, to carry on the government, but he was confronted at every turn by a hostile and enraged majority in the House of Commons, and, after several discomfitures, was defeated on a resolution affirming that no measure on the subject of tithes in Ireland could be satisfactory that did not provide for the appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Irish Church. He then resigned, and Lord Melbourne's administration, with some Replaced by the old Whig alterations, was reinstated. But it is remarkable that the appropriation of Irish Church property to other uses, which was a favourite project of the Whigs at this time, and the immediate occasion of the change of ministry, was afterwards abandoned, and the resolution of the House of Commons, upon which Sir Robert Peel resigned, remained a dead letter on the Commons' Journals.

ministry.

The failure of the efforts of William IV. in favour of the Tory party was complete, and it affords an instructive illustration of the effects of the Reform Act, in diminishing the ascendant influence of the crown. In George III.'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 the dissolutions in 1784 and 1807. But the failure of this attempt to convert parliament from one policy to another by royal prerogative and influence proved that, with the abolition of the nomination boroughs, and the extension of the franchise, the House of Commons had emancipated itself from the control of the crown; and "that the opinion of the people must now be changed before ministers can reckon upon a conversion of the parliament."

Waning authority of the crown.

"1

Lord Melbourne's ministry continued in office during the Reign of Queen rest of the king's reign; and, on the accession of the Victoria. present queen, in 1837, she confirmed them in their places, and gave them her entire confidence. In 1839, however, they were obliged to resign office, on account of their inability to carry on the government with success. Sir 1 May, v. 1, p. 127; see also Ed. Rev. v. 115, p. 211.

1

Robert Peel was then charged with the formation of a new ministry. Acting upon the advice of Lord Melbourne, her Majesty was induced, on this occasion, to insist upon retaining the ladies of her household, notwithstanding the change of ministry. This decision of the queen compelled Sir Robert Peel to relinquish the task entrusted to him, and the Melbourne administration were reinstated. But, being defeated upon a vote of want of confidence in the House of Commons in 1841, they again resigned, when Sir R. Peel was sent for, and fully empowered to make such alterations as he thought fit in the composition of the royal household.

"From this time," says May, "no question has arisen concerning the exercise of the prerogatives or influence of the crown which calls for notice. Both have been exercised wisely, justly, and in the true spirit of the constitution. Ministers enjoying the confidence of parliament have never claimed in vain the confidence of the crown. Their measures have not been thwarted by secret influence and irresponsible advice. Their policy has been directed by parliament and public opinion, and not by the will of the sovereign, or the intrigues of the court. Vast as is the power of the crown, it has been exercised through the present reign by the advice of responsible ministers, in a constitutional manner, and for legitimate objects. It has been held in trust, as it were, for the benefit of the people. Hence it has ceased to excite either the jealousy of rival parties or popular discontents."

"1

1 May, Const. Hist. v. 1, p. 135. For the origin of the terms "Conservative" (which has been erroneously attributed to Sir R. Peel) and "Liberal," by which the rival political parties are now designated, instead of being styled Whigs and Tories, as of yore, see Speeches, etc., of Edward, Lord Lytton, edited by his son, v. 1, p. lxxix.

-S

ions

.t, see

ins. D.

: present

PART II.

THE PREROGATIVES OF THE CROWN.

CHAPTER I.

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE SOVEREIGN.

THE supreme executive authority of the state in all matters, Supremacy of civil and military, together with jurisdiction and the sovereign. supremacy over all causes and persons ecclesiastical in the realm, belongs to the sovereign1 of the British Empire, by virtue of his kingly office: for he is the fountain of all state authority, dignity, and honour, and the source of all political jurisdiction therein. He is also the head of the Imperial Legislature, and a component part of every local legislature throughout his dominions. In all that concerns the outward life of the empire, and its relations with other countries or provinces, the sovereign is the visible representative of the state. It is his especial prerogative to declare war and to make peace, and also to contract alliances with foreign nations.

office.

Pre-eminence, perfection, and perpetuity are acknowledged attributes of the crown of England in its political Perpetuity of the kingly capacity. The crown is hereditary, but in the eye of the law "the king never dies." The decease of a reigning monarch is usually termed his demise; which signifies that, in consequence of the disunion of the king's natural body from his body-politic, the kingdom is transferred

1

[Mr Todd uses the word "sovereign" throughout this work in its popular sense as synonymous with king. The sovereignty of the British empire, however, strictly speaking, is not vested in the crown, but in the crown, the lords, and the body of electors who choose the House of Commons. Editor.]