The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 3014, 16 October 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1872.

Some curiosity was raised yesterday through the telegraphic news of the motion placed on the Order Paper by Mr Stafford respecting the constitution of the Ministry. The matter would otherwise be scarcely worth notice, taking into consideration that it was evidently merely the outburst of disappointed vanity, unable to restrain the mortification of defeat. Mr Vogel gave the short and selfevident reply when he said that the resignation or death of the Premier would of necessity dissolve the Ministry, But in this matter there should be no mistake ; such a dissolution may merely imply reconstruction. Although Parliament exercises such a controlling power over Ministries that its expression of want of confidence in them is quite sufficient reason why they should resign their seats, they are not the servants of Parliament, but of Ins Excellency the Governor, by whom they arc appointed. They are not at liberty lightly to withdraw from duties to which they have been called by the Governor and the responsibilities connected with which they have undertaken. Should, however, such an unlikely event occur during a Parliamentary recess, as the withdrawal of one man from office, assuming his resignation to be accepted by the Government, it would not necessarily leave his Excellency without advisers; and even should all resign in a body, he is still in a position to conduct the affairs of the country. An instance of this kind occurred in the year 1835 or rather 1834, on the fall of the administration of Lord Melbourne, broken up by the retirement of Lord Altiiorp, then Chancellor of the Exchequer in November of that year. Sir Robert Peel was summoned, but being at that time in Italy, some time elapsed before he could attend the King’s commands, His Majesty was literally without respon • sible advisers, and the Duke of Wellington alone held the seals of office and administered the affairs of Great Britain in the interim. It does not, however, necessarily follow that all the Ministers should resign because one does, even if he be the Premier. Dr Hearn, amongst others, gives the following instances of the retirement of one member from different Ministries, not followed by the resignation or dismissal of the rest: — But if a Minister of the Crown were to commit in his particular department of Government any act of gross neglect or malversation or any act for which he was singly responsible, Parliament might reasonably ask for the removal of such a Minister from the Royal Councils without any hostility to the Ministry of which he was a member. Such was the case of Viscount Melville. Mr Pitt, grieved though he was, and vigorously as he had defended his friend, did not think that the condemnatory vote upon Lord Melville required or was intended by the supporters of that vote to require the resignation of Ida Ministry, In 18U9 the second Earl of Chatham, who was also Master-General of the Ordnance with a seat in the Cabinet, was sent in command of that disastrous expedition to the Scheldt which still renders hateful to British ears the name of Walcheren. ('n bis return Lord Chatham delivered to Hia Majesty personally a confidential narrative of this expedition. Per this direct presentation of a public document to Ilia Majesty with a* request of secrecy, and without the intervention of the a Secretary of State, the House of Commons passed a vote of censure on Lord Chatham. Lord Chatham immediately resigned his office ; but his colleagues did not retire, and their resignation does not seem to have been expected. Some days afterwards indeed they succeeded in defeating a general vote of censure upon the conduct of the expedition. They were responsible for the general policy of the enterprise and for the conduct of the officer whose appointment they had or were supposed to have advised ; and the fact that the commanding officer was also one of their own body drew the tics of responsibility still closer, ‘But for this irregular mode of com*

municating with the King, that colleague was alone responsible. So too on a recent occasion the House of Commons expressed its disapproval of certain irregulaiities of Lord Chancellor Westbury. The matters to which this censure applied were not political, but related to the personal conduct of the Lord Chancellor in the administration of his office. Tbe result was that the Lord Chancellor resigned ; but that uo further change then took place in the Ministry of which he was a member. The principles which govern these cases are sufficiently apparent. In the former class the retiring Ministers disagreed with the majority of their colleagues. They had previously concurred in the propriety of a certain course When Parliament disappiovcd of their policy, a now element was introduced, The one portion wished to adhere to their former views. The other portion was content to accept the views indicated by Parliament. In these circumstances the minority retired, just as they would have retired upon any other subject of disagreement. There have been several instances of the deaths of Prime Ministers. One in 1812, when Mr Percival was assassinated by Bellingham. In the reconstruction of the Ministry that followed some of the old members of the Cabinet continued to hold office under Lord Liverpool until that nobleman was attacked by apoplexy, and died in 1827. He was succeeded by Mr Canning, who also died after holding the office of Prime Minister only a few months. At. his death an Administration was formed under the Premiership of Viscount Goderich, afterwards Earl of Kipon, and six of those Ministers who held office under Mr Canning continued to serve with him. As these matters cither are or should be wellknown to both Mr Stafford and Sir David Monro, the only conclusion derivable from their conduct is that they desire to throw every impediment in the way of the present Ministry, no matter at what cost and inconvenience to the Colony.