The Fulton County news. [volume] (McConnellsburg, Pa.) 1899-current, 1901-02-28
KING AND PARLIAMENT
WORKINGS OF THE ENGLISH coNsT..
TUITION MYSTERIOUS AND VAGUE.

ana HHFIl0ucut-The Britlsh Govern
ment Has Three FuDdame Rules.
The English Constitution is so mys-
tcrious thing. fearfully and wonder
fully vague, that It's operations are
rather hard to follow. The present is
good opportunity for explaining ami
illustrating the relations between the
King and Parliament, the King and
the Cabinet and the Cabinet and Par
lament. These relations were not es.
tahllshed In II day. or by any ore act
revolutionary or legal--but as the re-
suit of long centuries of friction, COM
promise andadjustment. We haveto go
back to the revolution of 1888 to find
the shifting of the centre of gravity
from the King to the House of Com
mons. Until that time cabinets were
secret committees of the King, or of
the Kings favorlte advisers. The
Ministers did not form a united body,
md the sovereign could remove any
one of them Mt will without consulting
the others. The King might have Il
policy. and so might Parliament, but
the Cabinet could have none. and
each Minister was responsible to the
King for his discharge of certain spe-
clal duties In the words of Macau-
lay, there was parliamentary govern
ment, but there was no ministry"
The triumph of Parliament over the
arbitrary monarchy in 1855 did not
settle the Cabinet question on it's pres
cnt basis, but it laid the foundations
for the solution of the mighty prob
lem The royal power having been re-
duced to a mere shadow. the Cabinet
had TO become the executive agent
of the real governing body-Parlia-
ment And this Is what IL has been
since the last vain attempts to keep II
in some sort OF subordination to the
crown
One Of the best English eXpounders
of constitutional law says that this
ancient and overwhelming Constitution
is Ike an old man who still wears
with attached fondness clothes IN the
fashion of his youth; what you see of
him is still the same, what you do not
see Is wholly altered" How true this
is will appear from comparison be-
tween the letter of the law and the
practice, which cannot be upset with
out destroying the whole British sys.
TEN. The English law, authorities
agree. does not know of such n body
as the Cabinet, and there is no provi-
sion requiring the King to appoint
Ministers acceptable to the Commons
or to dismiss such as have lost the
support of that body. Resignation af-
ter an adverse vote Is not demanded
by law. In fact, no feature of the So
ca e'd parliamentary system of gov
ernmcnt is expressly established by
statute.
Yet for long time the British Gov
eT'nment has rested upon these three
fundamental principles:
/. That the Cabinet shall he COM
posed of Ministers bound together by
ties of party or policy to give force
and effect to u certain political pro
gramme.
.. That the Cabinet shall hold Office
no longer than they can control ma
jorlty OF the House of Commons, but
shall resign after u defeat ON any
party question.
). That the leadership OF the Cab
met shall be vested In the Prime Min
ister, and that be. not the King, shall
have the right to select and remove
his associates.
These principles were settled dur
ing the reigns of the first two Georges,
and II is interesting to call attention
10 the last attempt at overthrowing
them in favor of royal discretion
This attempt was made in 1S35 by
William ". Dissatisfied with the
Melbourne ministry the King dis
missed 1t in Il letter TO the Premier,
declaring that he had no confidence in
him. Peel was then asked to form a
ministry, though the House of Com
mons had liberal majority. He re.
luctantly consented and tried to carry
on the Government. After four ad-
verse votes he resigned and expressed
himself thus: According to The prac-
tice, the principle and the letter OF the
Constitution, Government should not
persist in directing the national af-
fairs after loyal attempt contrary 10
the decided opinion of the House OF
Commons, even when 1t possesses the
confidence OF the King and Il majority
in the House OF Lords"
The Conservative party Itself in this
way formulated the principle of par
liamentary supremacy. and 1t has been
respected ever since.
Ii had full play under Victoria. The
so-called "bedchamber episode" is
curious illustration of the extent to
which the ministry has encroached
upon the personal rights of the sover-
elgn. In 1889 Peel, Invited to form
ministry informed the Queen that she
would have to dismiss the ladies of
her court, including those of the bed
chamber, because they belonged to the
rival party. Queen Victoria declined
TO accede to this request, characteriz-
ing It as contrary TO usage and re-
pugnant to her feelings" Peel refused
TO accept office on these terms. and
the Melbourne ministry was continued
In power.
Two years later the Queen had to
yield, and the mistress of the robes
was made dependent on ministerial
changes, wEi'c n few personal attend
ants were allowed TO continue in their