stronger condemnation of the system could we have than is furnished by these facts, and by his appeal to the forbearance of both parties in the House on this occasion ? The six Reform Bills referred to were those introduced in 1852, 1854, 1858, 1859, 1860, and 1866, Mr. Disraeli's own bill making the seventh; and this measure would undoubtedly have experienced the same fate as the others on the same subject had not Mr. Gladstone, the opposition leader, in the spirit of true patriotism, refused to oppose it on party grounds, although he was extremely dissatisfied with the bill as it left the hands of the ministry. Unlike other party leaders Mr. Gladstone determined to use his utmost endeavours to amend the measure, and by so doing, and thus removing it out of the category of party questions, he succeeded in carrying a greatly improved Reform Bill through the House.

If Government by Party is not government by majority, on what ground can it rest its claims? It cannot be that party government is necessary to the progress of legislation, as we have seen six Reform Bills rejected in succession because they were made party questions, and the seventh only carried because both sides of the House agreed to withdraw it from the sphere of party politics. Nor can it be that party government is necessary for the support of the government of the day, for it is in order to get

theless cling tenaciously to their theory. "Parliamentary government," says Earl Grey, "is essentially a government by means of party. . . . The House of Commons owes its success as an active part of the supreme authority, and its peculiar excellencies, to what are regarded as defects and departures from the principle in our representative system. . . . and it is chiefly through these defects that the ministers of the Crown have been enabled to obtain the authority they have exercised in the House of Commons."1 Parliamentary Government and party government are here represented as synonymous, a mistake which runs throughout Earl Grey's book on the subject. But what we have here more particularly to note is, first, the admission that party government owes its success to "defects and departures" from the principle of representation; and, secondly, the statement that it is owing to these very defects and departures that "the ministers of the Crown have been enabled to obtain the authority they have exercised in the House of Commons." According to Earl Grey, therefore, party government has had the happy effect of enabling ministers to obtain "authority" in the House, and it is carried on for the benefit of ministers, and in order to enable them to coerce Parliament. And no

1 Parl. Gov., pp. 49, 67, 68; see also Todd's Parl. Gov., vol. i. pp. 9, 13.

doubt, in this respect, the system has succeèures ded admirably. Party government has placed Parliamece t at the feet of the ministry of the day. We have already seen how a ministry, by means of a party vote, may coerce a majority; we may also see how a ministry may exercise authority and openly set the House at defiance.

In 1844 the government of Sir Robert Peel was defeated in Committee of the House of Commons on the Factories Bill, the House having affirmed by three separate votes, each of which were opposed by ministers, the expediency of reducing the hours of labour in factories from twelve to ten. Not satisfied with this, however, ministers tried the question a fourth time, and succeeded in reversing the former decision by a majority of seven. The Home Secretary, Sir James Graham, subsequently moved for leave to withdraw the bill and introduce another, which, while it embodied various points which the House had affirmed, nevertheless upheld the principle of twelve hours' labour. In the committee on this new bill, Lord Ashley moved to insert a clause restricting the hours of labour; but Sir Robert Peel stated that if this motion were carried, ministers would resign, and it was accordingly negatived by a large majority.1

1 Todd's Parl. Gov., vol. ii. pp. 303, 304; Hansard, vol. lxxxiii. pp. 1482-1493; lxxiv. pp. 899, 1094, 1104.

the Again in 1866, under Earl Russell's administration,

I

an instruction was carried in the House of Commons in opposition to ministers to make provision against bribery in the new Reform Bill. Nevertheless the government proceeded with the measure, ignoring the instruction with regard to the bribery clauses. This course was objected to by the opposition, who contended that it was the duty of ministers to embody the clauses in the bill; but as the government was soon afterwards defeated on another portion of the same bill, and having thereupon resigned, the measure was lost.1

But ministers do not usually act in such an openly hostile and defiant manner towards Parliament. These are simply instances of gross ministerial blundering. The same end may be attained by more conciliatory means. As a rule, ministers profess great consideration for the opinions of Parliament. It is only the opposition minority that they treat with contempt. Where an important vote is pending they first try to make sure of their majority. If there are any signs of disaffection in the ministerial rank and file, they rally their party, an appeal is made to party feeling, the disaffected have to stand out, all the influence at the command of ministers is employed to conciliate them, and when all else fails, a threat of resignation

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii. pp. 1348, 1589.