involve great principles or dangerous consequences. I should imagine, on the contrary, that it is precisely on questions of great importance that the Legislature should be consulted, and that to contend that it should confine its attention exclusively to small matters is equivalent to saying that Parliament is unfit for its duties.

It has, indeed, been contended that if ministers cannot rely on being able to pass their measures without substantial alteration, "they will naturally refrain from bestowing the necessary pains to render them perfect and complete."1 It is evident, however, that if ministers will only bestow the necessary pains upon their measures, on the understanding that Parliament will not alter them, their measures will not get any benefit from the deliberations of Parliament. The contention strikes at the very root of parliamentary government, for if Parliament has simply to endorse such measures as ministers are pleased to submit to it, and in the manner they please, it is difficult to see what advantage there is in having a Parliament at all. But the argument has a grotesque as well as a serious aspect. What would be thought of a bank manager, for instance, who, whenever he made a proposal to his directors, insisted that they should either accept that proposal in its entirety or 1 Todd's Parl. Gov., vol. ii. p. 312.

his resignation?

Would the directors not say that they were entitled to his best advice in any case, and that it was for them to accept or reject that advice as they thought proper? Suppose the manager went further, and said, “İ have a scheme to lay before you which I believe would benefit the institution, but that scheme I decline to carry out, unless you tell me beforehand that you will not alter it in any way whatever"-would not the directors consider it was time to get rid of such a manager? Yet this is exactly the attitude which the cabinet assumes towards Parliament, if we are to accept the arguments put forth by the advocates of the present system.

The theory of the corporate responsibility of the ministers almost invariably breaks down when it is put to the test of experience, and breaks down, be it observed, precisely when great principles are involved and when dangerous consequences are expected to result. When ministers are defeated on a question of great importance to the country, one that cannot be made the plaything of a party, the opposition who take their places are under an obligation to bring in a new measure on the same subject, which shall be accepted by the House in the place of the one which they rejected. But the new ministers almost invariably endeavour to shirk their responsibility in this respect; for they know that if they have

not a large majority behind them, they are almost certain to be defeated. They therefore decline to proceed with the question in the ordinary way, namely, by a bill, and adopt what is undoubtedly the safer course-but an altogether irregular one from a party point of view-that, namely, of proposing certain resolutions which, if approved of by the House, will form the framework of a bill to be afterwards embodied into a ministerial measure. This course has been followed in numerous instances, but I shall only refer to two of recent date.

In February, 1858, Lord Palmerston introduced a bill to transfer Her Majesty's possessions in India to the British Government, but a change of ministry took place before the second reading came on. In the following month, Mr. Disraeli, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought in a bill for effecting the same purpose; but this bill was not any more acceptable to the House than the one introduced by Lord Palmerston. On its becoming apparent that ministers would be defeated on their bill if they persevered with it, and the question, which was pressing for settlement, would be indefinitely postponed, Lord John Russell, a member of the opposition, suggested that they should consent to allow the question to be discussed in committee of the whole, upon general resolutions, in order that the principles might be

determined on which should form the basis of a new bill. The House accepted the suggestion, and Mr. Disraeli subsequently tabled fourteen resolutions, which, after much debate, were ultimately reduced to five, and reported to the House; and a new bill, in conformity with these resolutions, was introduced and accordingly passed into law. Had this unusual course not been adopted, we should probably have had a repetition of the occurrences which took place in 1784 over the India Bill of Mr. Fox. No less than three changes of ministries and one general election, the most severely contested election on record, took place over that measure, and all other business was completely suspended while it was under discussion.

The other instance occurred in 1867 in connection with the question of parliamentary reform, and to which reference has already been made. The Russell ministry having resigned the previous year owing to their inability to carry their Reform Bill, they were succeeded by the Derby ministry, who, finding themselves compelled to take up the question left unsettled by their predecessors, and feeling certain at the same time that if they made it a cabinet question they would immediately be defeated, proposed a series of resolutions, with the view of eliciting from the House its views upon the question. On this occasion Lord Derby

announced that his object was "not to pledge the government to a specific point upon any one of these resolutions, but to endeavour to obtain the general opinion of the House as to what measure would be likely to meet with general assent." The proposal was received in a friendly spirit by both sides of the House; but the resolutions when submitted were considered too indefinite, and it was suggested that the subject of reform should only be dealt with in a ministerial bill. In accordance with the wish of the House, both sides being of opinion that the question of reform could no longer be postponed, Mr. Disraeli withdrew his resolutions and brought in his Reform Bill. The bill, which was introduced on the 25th February, however, failed to satisfy the House, and the government withdrew it without waiting for an adverse vote, and immediately introduced a second bill of a more liberal character. Even this bill was not liberal enough for the House, and it was materially altered in committee notwithstanding the strenuous opposition of ministers, who nevertheless accepted the amendments, and the bill ultimately passed. Thus on such a vital question as constitutional reform, ministers not only took their instructions from the House in the first instance, but even the second bill which they introduced when they found that their first 1 Hansard, vol. clxxxv. p. 1285.