"We go (to the Congress). We should propose to go with no desire whatever of using force; it is not for that we ask it at all; but we desire to go armed with this, which would be, not only a Vote of Credit, but a Vote of Confidence, entitling us to speak as we would wish to speak in the Councils of Europe," &c.-[Ibid. 561.] both these restraints had, he believed, | On the question of the £6,000,000 Vote, been relaxed in recent years. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the they not know that the present House close of his speech, said— of Commons had been left in ignorance of very grave matters which seriously concerned the honour and welfare of the country until it was too late to take any steps with regard to them? In the first place, there was the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares. The amount of money involved was, perhaps, not large; but the entanglements and responsibilities to which it had led us were very considerable. Had the House been con sulted before that scheme was embarked upon, he did not think it would have been carried out in the way it was. The whole matter had been a failure, and at this moment we were left out in the cold, and saw France in a stronger position than ourselves. Then, again, no opportunity had been afforded them of expressing an opinion with regard to the bringing of the Indian troops to Malta, which Lord Selborne had declared to be a violation of the law. The AngloTurkish Treaty was another case in point. If the House had been consulted, he did not believe they would have sanctioned it. They had been hurried into the Afghan War in a similar manner; and with regard to the annexation of the Transvaal, which had resulted in the Zulu War, no option had been allowed them. They had been merely called upon to register the decrees of the Cabinet Council. In all these cases Parliament ought, in the first instance, to have been consulted; and, for his own part, he believed that all these enterprizes might with advantage have been stopped. He had further to complain that misleading information was frequently given by Her Majesty's Government in reply to Questions put in that House. For instance, on February 8, 1878, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a Question by the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington), described the position of affairs in Turkey, and said the Government "Feel that the state of affairs disclosed by the terms of the Armistice which I have just read has given rise to the danger which they then apprehended, and they have, in the circumstances, thought it right to order a portion of the Fleet to proceed at once to Constantinople for the purpose of protecting the lives and property of British subjects."[3 Hansard, ccxxxvii. 1329.1 Mr. Dillwyn The answers given by the Government to Questions respecting the Berlin Congress were altogether at variance with the Salisbury-Schouvaloff secret agreement. Personally, he had the highest respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was satisfied that he would not intentionally mislead the House; but the truth was that the right hon. Gentleman himself had been misinformed on those subjects, and that there had not been that concert in the Cabinet with respect to foreign affairs that had been so loudly asserted. Again, it was a familiar form of speech for the Government, when questioned with regard to any particular matter, to reply that they had received no official communication in reference to it, although the whole of the facts of the case might have been conveyed to them by private correspondence. Thus, on the 31st of March last, he had asked a Question as to the statement of Mr. A. Forbes, relating to a direct correspondence between the Queen and Colonels Mansfield and Wellesley during the Russo-Turkish War, and between Her Majesty and the Viceroy of India at an eventful crisis of the Afghan difficulty, to which he had received the following reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer : "I can give no information to the hon. Gentleman or the House on this subject, further than to say there is no kind of official communication between Her Majesty the Queen and the been writen by the Viceroy, and by successive Viceroy of India. Letters have occasionally Viceroys, to the Queen, and, no doubt, letters have been written from the Queen to the Viceroy. Of those we know nothing, any more than we do of any private correspondence of Her Majesty." Again, on the 21st of January, 1878, he asked whether a statement which had appeared in The Times relative to the Queen having interceded with the Emperor of Russia on behalf of Turkey was true, and the Chancellor of the Exche "The autograph letter of Her Majesty expressing confidence in Sir Bartle Frere has been an important factor in stirring up popular feeling." quer answered that it was; that a com- | highest authority at home against the munication which the right hon. Gentle- Colonial Secretary. He would quote man read had been made; but that it had from The Daily News Correspondentbeen made by the advice of the Ministers, because it seemed to him that the only though it was a private and personal reliable information the House could communication. He did not understand get was from the newspapers. Only the private and personal communications in other day the Correspondent of The Daily reference to public matters passing News at the Cape, in a very interesting between high official persons. Recent letter, said that the strongly-sustained events in India showed that instructions agitation throughout that Colony had remust have been given to our officials sulted in meetings supporting the policy which were not known to all the Members of Sir Bartle Frere and expressing conof the Cabinet. Our Generals appeared fidence in him. to have a roving commission to annex territory wherever they pleased; but even with this, he did not think General Roberts would have ventured upon making the speech he did to the tribes in An unofficial-he would not say private the Khurum Valley without some direct-letter had been used to stir up an agiauthority from home. The next case to tation in contravention of the censure which he wished to refer was that of Sir which had been sent out by one of the Bartle Frere, who had established in South responsible Ministers. He thought he Africa a scheme of dominion which was had stated sufficient to prove his case. likely to land this country as well as the He admitted that the case had been one Colony in disaster and defence. The very difficult of proof. [Ministerial conduct of Sir Bartle Frere was censured cheers.] He understood that cheer; but by the Secretary of State for the Colonies; he would remind the House that his but in a debate in that House recently difficulty lay mainly in the fact that the right hon. Baronet the Member for many official transactions had been stuTamworth (Sir Robert Peel), stated that diously kept from the knowledge of the the same mail which took out the censure House and of Parliament-transactions also carried communications addressed which, if they had seen the light of day, to Sir Bartle Frere telling him that he would have materially diminished the need take no notice of the official cen- difficulty of the task he had undertaken. sure. He did not know nor pretend to The House had always been jealous of say by whom those communications or private communications addressed by the that communication had been sent, if Sovereign to the authorities, particularly sent at all; but if anything of the kind abroad. For instance, Lord Chatham,. suggested by the right hon. Baronet oc- on his expedition to the Scheldt, adcurred, he could only say that it was not dressed a private narrative to the King, a course likely to support Ministers of which for some time was kept quiet; but the Crown at home or the rule of Eng- when it came out he was called to acland in her Colonies, especially in cases count by Parliament, although he rewhere the Crown was represented by a fused to answer questions, on the pleas wrong-headed Minister like Sir Bartle of being a Peer, and also that while in Frere. What was the effect of one thing command of this expedition he was a being said publicly with reference to Cabinet Minister of the Crown, and had Sir Bartle Frere, and another privately? a private right to communicate with the In the first place, it encouraged him Crown. A formal Resolution was passed, in a course which had been condemned, and Lord Chatham was censured by tho and in the next it encouraged the House. In 1780, Mr. Dunning moved a Colonies to pursue a course which was Resolution that "The influence of the anything but desirable. Was it sur Crown has increased, is increasing, and prising that the Colonists, who could ought to be diminished." In support of sell their produce at a high profit, that Motion, Mr. Dunning said it would which we should have to pay for at a be idle to require proof; they must look very high price indeed, should express for support to their consciences. Again, their confidence in Sir Bartle Frere and Mr. Fox in the same year, said that the desire the war to continue? They all undue influence of the Crown could not knew that he was supported by the be proved, because it showed itself in the dark, and could only be proved by some to suggest that the Sovereign pronotoriety of the fact. In the present truded herself into affairs of State, was case there was certain ground for believ-identical in meaning with the Motion ing, as he (Mr. Dillwyn) had shown, before the House, which was a Motion that the control of Parliament had been of condemnation of Her Majesty's evaded. The country had been involved Ministers, and nothing more. They in troubles which he thought might have wished to bring home to Her Majesty's been avoided had Parliament been con- Government the responsibility for what sulted; but Parliament had not been had happened-for the weakening which consulted, and the consequence was ad- Constitutional guarantees had suffered ditional wars and increased expenditure. from their policy. The maxim, "The He would appeal to the House to say Queen can do no wrong," had been whether either the information obtained sometimes spoken of as a mere fiction; had not been misleading, or had been but he regarded it as a Constitutional withheld from Parliament, since their principle of the highest importance; for information had been procured from if once it came to be admitted that other sources? He did not wish to re- wrong could be brought home to the open old sores; but he did desire to do Crown, they would have to divert their what he could to stop the progress of the action from a quarter in which it might system of Departmental Government. He be useful, and waste their powers in atwished to see the advice of the Cabinet tacking that which by its very nature given to the Crown, and not the advice was invulnerable. Precedents existed, of a single Minister, so that we might showing what were the views of high have the responsibility of the whole Ca- authorities with regard to the responsibinet, and not that of any individual. In bility of Ministers. In 1807, after the bringing this question before the House, death of Mr. Fox, in consequence of a he was only anxious to assert the Privi- pledge supposed to have been given by leges of Parliament, which were being the new Ministry to the King not to invaded, and, in doing so, he believed raise the Catholic question, a Motion most conscientiously that he was doing was proposed in the House by a Gentlehis duty as a loyal Member of the House, man bearing a name that had always and in the interests of the country as been honoured-Mr. Brand-asserting well as of the Crown itself. The hon. that it was contrary to the first duties of Gentleman concluded by moving- the confidential Servants of the Crown to "That, to prevent the growing abuse by Her restrain themselves by any pledge, exMajesty's Ministers of the Prerogative and in-pressed or implied, from offering to the fluence of the Crown, and consequent augmentation of the power of the Government in enabling them, under cover of the supposed personal interposition of the Sovereign, to withdraw from the cognizance and control of this House matters relating to policy and expenditure properly within the scope of its powers and privileges, it is necessary that the mode and limits of the action of the Prerogative should be more strictly observed." MR. COURTNEY, in rising to second the Motion, said, he thought it must, at all events, be plain to the House that the desire of his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) was not in any way to move a Vote of Censure against the Crown. The Motion was directed solely against Her Majesty's Government. Those who approved the course taken by the hon. Member for Swansea would be false to the object which they had in view, if they were to direct their censure in any other quarter. He held that the language of the hon. Member's original Motion, which had been thought by Mr. Dillwyn King such advice as circumstances might render necessary for the welfare and security of the Empire. That Resolution was supported by Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Whitbread, Lord Howick, and other Gentlemen equally eminent in the House of Commons, and a similar Motion in the House of Lords received the support of Lord Erskine. The objection was made, then, that the Resolution was an attack upon the Sovereign; and in the course of the debate a speech was made by a distinguished person-Mr. Plunket, the Attorney General for Ireland-who warmly defended himself and those who were in favour of the Motion against the imputation that it was wished to attach blame to the King, for whom he had the highest respect. The precedent was further important, because it was argued by Mr. Percival, the then Prime Minister, that although it was quite true that every act of the Crown must be vouched for by a responsible Monarchy such as ours, three rights-the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn." "The Sovereign has, under a Constitutional the third to warning given against action taken by the Ministry. The writer added-" and a King of good sense and sagacity would want no other." Another high authority said— Minister, yet in the interim between suc- | lines of policy in comparative independcessive Ministries the action of the Crown ence of one another, thus minimizing was necessarily independent, and what- the collective judgment, the collective ever was done then was beyond Parlia- authority, and the collective responsimentary criticism, and could not be made bility of the Cabinet, and also minimizthe subject of a Vote of Censure on the ing the control of the House. As to the Ministers. If that argument had been first question, of the undue use of the allowed, it would have done away alto- name and authority of the Crown, no gether with the responsibility of Minis- one, he supposed, would follow the exters; but although the House of Com- ample of Wolsey and say, "Ego et Rex mons, by a small majority, rejected Mr. meus," in order to push himself forward; Brand's Motion, that argument was dis- but Ministers might change the form of tinctly repudiated in 1835, when Sir the phrase and say, "Regina mea et ego," Robert Peel came into Office. He was in order to shield themselves from critisummoned from Rome, and a considerable cism. The true function of the Crown interval intervened between the dis- was thus laid down by the high authomissal of Lord Melbourne and the ac- rity to whom he had already referred ceptance by Sir Robert Peel of the Seals (Mr. Bagehot)— of Office; but his first act was to accept the responsibility of what had been done in the interregnum, including the dismissal of Lord Melbourne. No interval could at all be allowed, even in imagina- Not one of these rights suggested the tion, to interpose between the responsibility of one Ministry and another. These power of initiation. The first two had instances proved that, under no circum-reference to the action of the Ministers, stances, could the Crown itself commit an act which could be the subject of censure or blame. It might be said that he had been referring to what were elementary truths; but it was necessary to remind hon. Members of the elementary truths of Constitutional principles in King a wide authority in all the councils of the these days, when they were not alto- Their resolutions upon every important meagether "understanded of the people." sure of foreign and domestic policy are subHe ventured to say that the opinion mitted to his approval; and when that approval which was held in some quarters, that is withheld, his Ministers must either abandon the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Dill- their policy or resign their office. They are rewyn) was a Vote of Censure on the Crown, Parliament on the other; and while they retain sponsible to the King on the one hand, and to could only be entertained by those who the confidence of the King by administering had lost sight of elementary truths. A affairs to his satisfaction, they must act upon writer, to whose merits the Chancellor principles and propose measures which they can of the Exchequer had paid a just tribute justify to Parliament. And here is the proper limit to the King's influence." (Mr. Bagehot), had said that if a gentleman attempted to explain to his ser- Such were the words of the learned genvants the phrase "The Queen reigns, tleman (Sir Erskine May) who sat at but does not govern,' ," he would find that Table. Then, again, as the Crown they did not understand his language. had no power of initiation, the Crown It would seem as if the ignorance of the must not be put forward as having used kitchen had invaded the House of Com- it. It must not be suggested that the mons. A Vote of Censure on the Crown Crown had a policy of its own which had was an absurdity, because such a Vote been adopted by the Ministry instead of would contradict the principle that the being put forward by the Ministry and Crown was above responsibility. His hon. sanctioned by the Crown. If the Ministry Friend attacked the Ministry because accept suggestions from the Crown, they he held that they had protruded the must do so on condition of making them name and authority of the Queen, so as their own, and merging their origin in to obtain undue power through the re- themselves. All this sprung from the prinspect due to her name; and because ciple that the Crown could never take rethey had initiated and pursued great sponsibility upon itself. They saw that in "A Constitutional Government insures to the State. He chooses and dismisses his Ministers. At immediately after it has taken place. Until Ministers have come to an understanding as to the advice they will tender to their Sovereign upon any given occasion it would be premature for them to communicate with the Crown thereon. The Premier himself is under no obligation, either of duty or of courtesy, to confer with the Sovereign upon any matter which is still under the consideration of the Cabinet." the Royal pledge with respect to the Ca- | to the Premier; if not beforehand, at any rate tholic claims, the reponsibility of which rested upon the Ministry. There was another illustration of great interest in this matter, and that was the action taken at the close of the Great War by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. the close of the Great War the then Czar proposed a "holy alliance" between the victor Kings-himself, the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the Prince Regent, and he wrote an autograph letter to the Prince, inviting him to sign the necessary Treaty. In what way did the then Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister deal with that matter? Lord Castlereagh wrote thus to Lord Liverpool Upon the whole this is what may be called a scrape. I am desired by the Emperor of Austria, through Metternich, to express his earnest hope that the Prince will not refuse My own opinion very much concurs with that of His Imperial Majesty, and in weighing difficulties on both sides I think no person will blame the Prince for not refusing assent himself to a proposition so made to him. But I think the Prince must take it upon himself, and sign it, without the intervention of his Ministers, as an autographic avowal of sentiment between him and the Sovereigns his allies, tending to preserve the tranquillity of Europe. To decline doing so might produce very unpleasant consequences." Lord Liverpool, in his reply, said— himself to this overture. "It is quite impossible to advise the Prince to sign the act of accession which has been transmitted to him. Such a step would be in consistent with all the forms and principles of our government, and would subject those who advised it to a very serious responsibility. Nothing is more clear than that the King or Regent of Great Britain can be a party to no act of State personally; he can only be a party to it through the instrumentality of others who are responsible for it." . Well, these were illustrations of the principles he wished to lay down in confirmation of what he had said as to the necessity of action originating with the Ministry and not with the Crown. He would next touch upon the necessity of collective action on the part of Ministers. The action of an individual Minister was not sufficient to substantiate every nominal action of the Crown. The advice given to the Crown must be that of the Ministry collectively. Upon that point, he would quote the opinion of an eminent authority on Constitutional Law "All correspondence between the Sovereign and a subordinate Minister should be submitted Mr. Courtney The House would remember what took place when the present Government were last in Office. In the year 1867 the present Prime Minister threw upon the Crown, instead of taking upon himself, the responsibility of deciding whether or not there should be a Dissolu tion after a hostile vote of that House. But as to the necessity of collectivity of action, he would refer to the action taken by Lord Chatham in 1810. Lord Chatham, who was a Member of the Cabinet as well as a Peer, came back from his expedition to the Scheldt, drew up a Memorandum of his proceedings, and, going to a Levée, gave it to the King. It remained in the hands of His Majesty some time. Lord Chatham desired to make an alteration in it, received it back, made the alteration, and again handed it to the King, who, after a time, handed it to the Secretary of State. What was the result of Lord Chatham's proceeding? A Motion was made in the House of Commons by Mr. Whitbread, censuring the transaction, and the House approved the Motion by a large majority, after a discussion, which lasted, the record stated, till half-past 6 in the morning. Mr. Canning, who was not then in Office, spoke, and supported the Motion of Censure, although it was urged that Chatham, as a Peer, might demand an audience of the King, and that, as a responsible Minister of the Crown, he was entitled to act upon his responsibility. The House of Commons, however, held that the document should have reached the King through the collective Cabinet, and not as the result of individual dealing between the Crown and an individual Minister. The case which occurred under Lord Liverpool's Administration in 1825 was, perhaps, even more remarkable. The Cabinet having drawn up a Memorandum on the subject of the action to be taken in reference to the Spanish Colonies, which had revolted, the King endeavoured to |