PAGE Presence of strangers recognised, 1845. 439 Jews to Parliament. The publication of the division lists, 1836 Freedom of comments upon Parliament Early petitions, and rights of petitioners Commencement of modern system of petitioning Petitioning at the beginning of the present century Debates on presenting petitions restrained Pledges of members to constituents considered Stability of governments, before and since reform, considered ib. CHAPTER I. GROWTH OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE CROWN: - ITS SOURCES: RESTRICTIONS ON THE PERSONAL INFLUENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN: — MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY: — ACCESSION OF GEORGE III. HIS RESOLUTION TO EXERCISE A LARGER SHARE OF PERSONAL INFLUENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT: HIS POLICY, AND ITS EFFECTS: RELATIONS WITH SUCCESSIVE MINISTERS DURING HIS REIGN. HIS the influ ence of the crown. THE growth of the influence of the crown, at a period Growth of in the history of this country when government by prerogative had recently been subverted, and popular rights and liberties enlarged, attests the vital power of the monarchy. At the Revolution, the arbitrary rule of the Stuart kings finally gave way to parliamentary government, with ministerial responsibility. Such a change portended the subjection of future kings to the will of Parliament; but it proved no more than a security for the observance of the law. While the exercise of the royal authority was restrained within the proper limits of the constitution, the crown was shorn of none of its ancient prerogatives; but remained, as it had ever been, the source of all power, civil and ecclesiastical," the fountain of honour,”—the first and paramount institution of the state. Its powers, indeed, were now exercised by ministers responsible to Parliament; and the House of Commons was no longer held in awe by royal prerogative. Yet so great were the attributes of royalty, and so numerous its sources of influence, that, for more than a century after the Revolution, it prevailed over the more popular elements of the constitution. A Its sources. The peerage. Parliament representing the people little more than in name, and free, in great measure, from the restraint of public opinion,—which had not yet the means of being intelligently formed, or adequately expressed,-promoted the views of rival parties, rather than the interests of the people. This popular institution, designed to control the crown, was won over to its side, and shared, while it supported, its ascendency. The crown now governed with more difficulty, and was forced to use all its resources, for the maintenance of its authority but it governed as completely as ever. Meanwhile every accession to the greatness of the country, favoured the influence of the crown. By the increase of establishments and public expenditure, the means of patronage were multiplied. As the people grew more wealthy, considerable classes appeared in society, whose sympathies were with "the powers that be," and who coveted favours which the crown alone could bestow. And thus the very causes which ultimately extended the power of the people, for a long time served to enlarge the influence of the crown. Vast and various were the sources of this influence. The crown bestowed everything which its subjects most desired to obtain; honours, dignities, places and preferments. Such a power reached all classes, and swayed constituents, as well as Parliaments. The House of Lords has ever been more closely associated with the crown and its interests, than the House of Commons. The nobles of every land are the support and ornament of the court: and in England they are recognised as an outwork of the monarchy, a defence against the democratic elements of our institutions. The entire body is the creation of the crown. The temporal peers, or their ancestors, have all been ennobled by royal favour: many have been raised to a higher dignity in the peerage; and others aspire to such an elevation. A peerage of the United Kingdom is an object of ambition to Scotch and Irish Peers. The Spiritual Lords owe their dignity to the crown, and look up to the same source of power, for translation to more important sees. Nearly all the highest honours and offices are engrossed by the nobility. The most powerful duke, who has already enjoyed every other honour, still aspires to the Order of the Garter. The lord-lieutenancy of a county,-an office of feudal grandeur,confers distinction and influence, of which the noblest are justly proud.1 Other great appointments in the state and royal household are enjoyed exclusively by peers and their families; while a large proportion of the state patronage is dispensed by their hands. Their rank also brings them within the immediate reach of court favour and social courtesies, by which the most eminent peers naturally become the personal friends of the reigning sovereign. Accordingly, with some rare exceptions, the House of Lords has always ranged itself on the side of the crown. It has supported the king himself against his own ministers; it has yielded up its convictions at his word; and where party connexions have brought it into conflict with a ministry enjoying the confidence of the crown, its opposition has been feeble or compliant.2 Nor has its general support of the throne been inconsistent with the theory of the constitution. Commons. The Commons, on the other hand, representing the The people, are assumed to be independent of the crown, sembles the ancient dignity of "Comes." Though the office of Lord-Lieutenant does not date earlier than the reign of Edward VI., it re 2 See Chap. V., Peers and Peer age. and jealous of its influence. How far these have been their actual characteristics, will be examined hereafter1: but here it may be briefly said, that until the reform in the representation of the people in 1832, the counties were mainly under the influence of great and noble families as they still are, to a considerable extent: a large proportion of the boroughs were either the absolute property of peers and their connexions, or entirely under their control; while in many other boroughs the interest of the government was paramount at elections. The cities and large towns alone had any pretensions to independence. Except on rare occasions, when all classes were animated by a strong public opinion, the representation of the people and popular interests was a constitutional theory, rather than an active political force. Had there been no party distinctions, there could scarcely have been an ostensible opposition to any ministers, whom the king might have chosen to appoint. Members of Parliament sought eagerly the patronage of the crown. Services at elections, and support in Parliament, were rewarded with peerages, baronetcies, offices and pensions. Such rewards were openly given the consideration was avowed. There were other secret rewards of a grosser character, which need not here be noticed.2 Nor were constituents beyond the reach of the same influence. The collection and expenditure of an enormous and continually increasing public revenue provided inferior places, -almost without number,-which were dispensed on the recommendation of members supporting the government. Hence to vote with the ministers of the day was the sure road to advancement: to vote against them, was certain neglect and proscription. |