Title: The British Parliament and ministerial responsibility c. 1740–60*
Abstract: Abstract This article deals with certain matters concerning the issue of the political accountability of ministers to parliament during the last twenty years of the reign of King George II. It emphasizes the fact that there was no constitutional convention during this period that would have allowed parliament or the House of Commons alone to force the dismissal or resignation of ministers (as the ultimate sanction of political accountability). At that time, the king was the real master of his ministers. On the other hand, and as a matter of fact, only those ministers who could best manage the king's business in parliament were kept in office by the king. These propositions are demonstrated by examining the practice of the various administrations between 1740–60. It was also especially important for the leading ministers, such as Robert Walpole, Henry Pelham, the Duke of Newcastle and William Pitt to secure both the favour of the king and the confidence of parliament to remain in office. The Pitt-Newcastle administration (from 1757) additionally confirmed the general principle in times of war that administrations can only have firm parliamentary majorities to hold onto power as long as they would lead a war successfully. Notes *A shorter version of this paper was read to the 58th conference of ICHRPI in Sept. 2007 in Edinburgh. I am very grateful to Dr Paul Seaward, Director, History of Parliament Trust, for his comments on a draft of this paper. Any errors are entirely my own. 1 See the textbooks on constitutional law and constitutional history, e.g. E.C.S. Wade and A.W. Bradley, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 11th edn. (London, 1993), pp. 244–5, 252–74 (for royal prerogatives and the influence of statutes on them). 2 For various occasions of a legal discussion of this doctrine in the seventeenth century and before, see C. Roberts, The Growth of Responsible Government in Stuart England (Cambridge, 1966), p. 35 and passim. 3 See F.W. Maitland, The Constitutional History of England, H.A.L. Fisher (ed.) (Cambridge, 1908, reprinted 1979), pp. 100–1, 195–6. 4 Will. & Mary, sess. 2, c.2. 5 12 & 13 Will. III, c. 2. 6 These matters were developed and formed by case law, e.g. by the famous case in 1765 of Entick v. Carrington for an action of trespass against two king's messengers, see 19 Howell's State Trials, 1029. Available online at: http://www.constitution.org/trials/entick/entick_v_carrington.htm 7 See Roberts, Responsible Government, p. 1 and Maitland, Constitutional History, p. 317 for some legal problems of impeachment proceedings in the 17th century. 8 The controversy over royal pardon before and during impeachment proceedings in the late seventeenth century thus came to an end, but royal pardon granted after sentence was still left untouched, see Maitland, Constitutional History, p. 318. 9 See 15 How.St.Tr. 994–1195. 10 See S. Taylor and C. Jones (eds.), Tory and Whig: The Parliamentary Papers of Edward Harley, third Earl of Oxford, and William Hay, MP for Seaford, 1716–1753 (Woodbridge, 1998) [hereafter Edw. Harleýs Jnl. or Wm. Haýs Jnl.], p. 79; W. Cobbett (ed.), Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England, 36 vols, (London, 1806–20) [hereafter PH], 13, p. 1438. 11 For a modern account of collective and individual responsibility of ministers see G. Marshall, Constitutional Conventions: the Rules and Forms of Political Accountability (rev. edn, Oxford, 1986), ch. IV and XIV; R. Brazier, Ministers of the Crown (Oxford, 1997), pp. 261–83. 12 J. Hatsell, Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons; under separate titles. With observations. Second edition, 2 vols (London, 1785), 2, p.170. 13 This principle was sometimes stressed in parliamentary debates during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries up to 1760 and beyond. The backbench MP John Tucker reported to his brother Richard in a letter of 8 Dec. 1743 that this principle had been emphasised in the Commons' debate of 6 Dec. 1743 (note that all dates till 1752 are old style) on the Hanoverian troops: ‘…that it was a known and received maxim that the K of great Brittain could do no wrong …and therefore ‘twas his Minister that ought to answer for…’, Tucker papers, Bodl., MS Don c 106, f. 114v. 14 The legal basis is the royal prerogative of appointing and dismissing the ministers which still remains unquestioned (e.g. see E.C.S. Wade and A.W. Bradley, Constitutional Law, pp. 266–7, 277, though on the prime minister's advice). 15 This type of responsibility corresponds with the departmental structure of government versus the cabinet government of later days, see T. Williams, ‘The Cabinet in the Eighteenth Century’, History xxii (1937–8), 250–1 and A.H. Dodd, The Growth of Responsible Government from James the First to Victoria (London 1956), pp. 103–4. 16 E.g. see prime minister Lord North declaring in the Commons on 27 Feb. 1782 that ‘the king had a right to admit and dismiss from his councils whomever he pleased…without assigning any cause…’, PH 22, p. 1079. 17 Since 3 Apr. 1721, see R. Sedgwick (ed.), The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1715–1754, 2 vols (London, 1970) [hereafter: HPC], 1, p. 135, 2, p. 514. 18 For a survey see HPC, 1715–1754, 2, p. 516. 19 See E. Cruickshanks, ‘The Political Management of Sir Robert Walpole, 1720–42’, in J. Black (ed.), Britain in the Age of Walpole (Basingstoke, 1984), pp. 23–43. For the Lords see C. Jones, ‘The House of Lords and the Growth of Parliamentary Stability, 1701–1742’, in C. Jones, (ed.), Britain in the First Age of Party: Essays presented to Geoffrey Holmes, (London, 1987), pp. 85–110. 20 Although direct evidence is usually lacking about how Secret Service money was used, there are many indications or indirect proofs. For a survey see P. Woodfine, ‘Tempters or Tempted? The Rhetoric and Practice of Corruption in Walpolean Politics’, in E. Kreike and W. C. Jordan (eds.), Corrupt Histories (Woodbridge, 2004), ch. 7, pp. 167–96. 21 By a decree of Louis XV, King of France, the premier ministre was legally introduced and set above all other ministers of the king, see Brazier, Ministers, p. 5. 22 On the monarch's governing style see E. R. Turner and G. Megaro, ‘The King's Closet in the Eighteenth Century’, American Historical Review 45 (1940), pp. 761–76. 23 See the new biographies by J. Black, George II: puppet of the politicians? (Exeter, 2007) and M. Bertram, Georg II.: König und Kurfürst (2d edn, Göttingen, 2004). 24 In the Commons' debate on 1 Dec. 1743 King George II was praised for his behaviour at the Battle of Dettingen (PH, 13, p. 137, Commons Journals [hereafter: CJ], 24, pp. 482–3). 25 For the special relationship between Great Britain and Hanover during the period under research see the very useful study by U. Dann, Hannover und England 1740–1760: Diplomatie und Selbsterhaltung (Hildesheim, 1986). 26 This was 70 less than at the beginning of the previous 1727–34 Parliament where the nominal government majority was 172, see HPC, 1715–1754, 1, p. 43. After the vote of 1 Feb. 1739 in the Commons for an approval of a forthcoming Anglo–Spanish convention the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Argyll had already left the government side carrying with them 12 MPs, see HPC, 1715–1754, 1, pp. 44, 91, note XX. 27 A useful operational study is R. Harding, Amphibious Warfare in the Eighteenth Century: the British Expedition to the West Indies 1740–1742 (Woodbridge, 1991). For the political handling of the war see P. Woodfine, Britannia's Glories: the Walpole Ministry and the 1739 War with Spain (Woodbridge, 1998). 28 For parliamentary discussions on some problems of the war in 1740 see the following debates: House of Commons, 21 Mar. 1740 (motion for papers concerning the protection of trade by ships of war), from Edw. Harley's Jnl., p. 46, CJ, 23, p. 506; House of Lords, 15 Apr. 1740 (motion for a vote of censure, for not sending land forces with Admiral Vernon to America), PH, xi. 582–98, Lords Journals [hereafter: LJ], 25, p. 514; House of Lords, 8 Dec. 1740 (motion for papers for Rear Admiral Haddock's instructions), PH, 11, pp. 582–98, LJ, 25, p. 550. 29 See the texts of the questions for the removal of the Lords Somers, Orford, Halifax and Portland put in the House of Commons on 15 Apr. 1701 in CJ, 13, p. 491 and D.W. Hayton (ed.), The Parliamentary Diary of Sir Richard Cocks, 1698–1702 (Oxford, 1996), p. 94. 30 See in detail P.D.G. Thomas, The House of Commons in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1971), pp. 14–44. 31 See the excellent survey by Eveline Cruickshanks (note 19). 32 See HPC, 1715–1754, 1, pp. 44–5. 33 Beside the motions listed in note 28, see the following divisions in the House of Commons (results in brackets): 29 Jan. 1740 (206:222), Edw. Harley's Jnl., p. 41; 21 Feb. 1740 (196:247), Edw. Harley's Jnl., pp. 43–4; 18 Nov. 1740 (159:226), CJ, 23, p. 532, PH, 11, p. 696; 10 Dec. 1740 (252:197), PH, 11, pp. 928–91; see also HPC, 1715–1754, 1, p. 45. 34 For the debate in the Commons, see I.G. Doolittle, ‘A First-hand Account of the Commons Debate on the Removal of Sir Robert Walpole, 13 February 1741’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 53, (1980), pp. 125–40. The text of the motion in both Houses was to remove Sir Robert Walpole ‘from His Majesty's Presence and Councils for ever’, see CJ, 23, 648, LJ, 25, p. 596. (It was the first motion of this kind in the House of Lords). 35 CJ, 23, p. 648 (290:106); the figures for the Lords were: N.C. 108 to C. 59, see PH, 11, p. 1062. 36 Doolittle, ‘First-hand Account’, pp. 128–31, 135, 137–9. 37 See Doolittle, ‘First-hand Account’, pp. 132–7; HPC, 1715–1754, 1, p. 93, PH, 11, pp. 1058–9 (Lord Hardwicke). This question was very extensively discussed, especially in the Lords. 38 LJ, 25, p. 597. 39 See Doolittle, ‘First-hand Account’, 134; W. Coxe, Memoirs of the life and administration of Sir Robert Walpole, Earl of Orford, 3 vols (London, 1798), vol. 1, p. 653. 40 For the development of the cabinet in the eighteenth century see Williams' still very useful survey, ‘The Cabinet’. 41 After Walpole's fall in February 1742, Sandys was made Chancellor of the Exchequer while Lord Carteret became Secretary of State for the Northern Department including the responsibility for the Electorate of Hanover. 42 Doolittle, ‘First-hand Account’, p. 134; Coxe, Walpole, 1, p. 654. 43 See Williams, ‘The Cabinet’, p. 251; Dodd, Growth of Responsible Government, p. 104. As late as in 1806, the Commons debated whether ministers could be held collectively responsible within the cabinet or only individually (debate of 3 Mar. 1806 on Lord Ellenborough's seat in the cabinet, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Ser. 1, vol. 6, pp. 286–342). 44 For a survey see Williams ‘The Cabinet’ and the conclusions of W. Michael, Englische Geschichte im achtzehnten Jahrhundert, 5 vols (Hamburg, Berlin, Basel, 1896–1945), vol. III, pp. 546–92. 45 See Williams, ‘The Cabinet’, p. 247 and C.H. Stuart and B. Williams, The Whig Supremacy, 1714–1760 (2nd edn, Oxford, 1962), pp. 35–41. 46 HPC, 1715–1754, 1, p. 47. 47 HPC, 1715–1754, 1, pp. 47–50. 48 CJ, 24, p. 80; PH, 12, pp. 403–4; Wm. Hay's Jnl., pp. 175–6. 49 Coxe, Walpole, 1, pp. 695–6, 3, pp. 592–3 (Sir Robert Walpole to the Duke of Devonshire, 2 Feb. 1742). 50 The Earl of Wilmington then Lord President of the Council was made First Commissioner of the Treasury while Lord Harrington, Secretary of State (North), got Wilmington's post. For Lord Carteret and Sandys see note 41. Only Sir Charles Wager, First Lord of the Admiralty, left the government according to a wish he had already stated to the king in Jan. 1742. He then re-entered the administration in December 1742 (see. Cruickshanks in: HPC, 1715–1754, 2, p.504). For the term ‘broad bottom’ see Edw. Harley's Jnl, 56 (12 Feb. 1742); another term used was ‘mixed administration’, see John to Richard Tucker, 3 Apr. 1742, Bodl., MS Don c 105, ff. 57–8. 51 J. Black, The Hanoverians: the History of a Dynasty (Hambledon and London, 2004), p. 97. 52 The first of several major clashes between government and opposition on this subject during the years 1742–4 took place in the House of Commons on 10 Dec. 1742. The government carried the question to take 16,000 Hanoverian troops into British pay by a majority of 67 votes (260:193), see Edw. Harley's Jnl., p. 63 and Wm. Hay's Jnl., pp. 186–7. Four days earlier, on 6 December the government majority on an army matter had been much greater, 280:150, what John Tucker saw as ‘a very powerfull Majority’, Bodl., MS Don c 105, f. 183v. In the Lords the debate on the Hanoverian troops took place on 1 Feb. 1743. The government carried the questions with majorities of N.C. 90 to C. 35 (first division) and C. 78 to N.C. 35 (second division), see Edw. Harley's Jnl, p. 63. 53 For Carteret's attempts to reconcile British and Hanoverian interests see Dann, Hannover und England, pp. 55–79. 54 Sandys was created Lord Sandys, Baron of Ombersley on 20 Dec. 1743 while Henry Pelham took the seals as Chancellor of the Exchequer eight days earlier on 12 Dec. 1743, see HPC, 1715–1754, 2, pp. 406, 329. 55 He held this post continuously from 1724. 56 See J.B. Owen, The Rise of the Pelhams (London, 1957), pp. 232–6; HPC, 1715–1754, 1, p. 55; Edw. Harley's Jnl, p. 71. 57 Walpole to Mann, 26 Nov. 1744, cited in HPC, 1715–1754, 1, p. 55. 58 The retreat from Derby began on 6 December. The rebellion finally ended when the rebels were crushingly defeated at the Battle of Culloden on 16 April 1746. 59 See the Duke of Newcastle's report to Lord Chesterfield, 18 Feb. 1746, printed in D.B. Horn and M. Ransome (eds.), English Historical Documents, 10 (London, 1957), pp. 109–11. 60 Edw. Harley's Jnl., pp. 75–6 61 Owen, Pelhams, pp. 250, 277, 279, 295. 62 Edw. Harley's Jnl, p. 77; John to Richard Tucker, 12 Apr. 1746, Bodl., MS Don c 108, ff. 25–6. 63 Edw. Harley's Jnl, p. 76; J. Black, Pitt the Elder (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 72–5. 64 See Edw. Harley's Jnl, p. 77 (11 Apr. 1746): ‘Mr Pit who had been so warm against the Hannoverian Troops before spoke as Warm now for this Measure.’ HPC, 1715–1754, 2, p. 355. 65 See (for the Commons) HPC, 1715–1754, 1, pp. 56–7. The government majority in the Lords was even greater as can be deduced from the vote of 21 May 1747 on the Bill to take away the Heritable Jurisdictions etc. in Scotland where 79 Lords voted for the commitment of this bill compared to only 16 voting against it (Edw. Harley's Jnl, p. 80). A year earlier, on 2 May 1746, on a motion for an address to the king against carrying on the war in Flanders the numbers were N.C. 81 to C. 26 (Edw. Harley's Jnl, p. 77). 66 Cf. Stuart and Williams, Whig Supremacy, pp. 32–3. 67 Further development of the so called new opposition should be prevented before the War of the Austrian Succession was at the end, wrote Newcastle to Cumberland, 17 Mar. 1747, RA, Cumb. P. 20/415, cited by J. Black, America or Europe? British Foreign Policy, 1739–63 (London, 1998), p. 115. 68 HPC, 1715–1754, 1, p. 57. 69 On 6 February, Newcastle was appointed Secretary of State, Northern Department. 70 At the same time in June 1751, the Duke of Bedford, Secretary of State for the Southern Department since 12 Feb. 1748, was replaced by the Earl of Holdernesse, an ally of the Pelhams, see J.C.D. Clark (ed.), The Memoirs and Speeches of James, 2nd Earl Waldegrave, 1742–1763 (Cambridge, 1988), p. 49. 71 HPC, 1715–1754, 1, p. 59; H. Walpole, Memoirs of the reign of King George the Second, Lord Holland (ed.), 3 vols (London, 1846), vol. I, p. 228. 72 The treaty of peace was signed at Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) on 18 Oct. 1748 (new style). 73 PH, 14, pp. 353–95. 74 15 Mar. 1749: N.C. 88 to C. 16 (opposition motion by Lord Bath), see Edw. Harley's Jnl, p. 84; 18 Mar. 1749: N.C. 72 to C. 15 (on a question to leave out words) and N.C. 73 to C. 12 (on a provision proposed by an opposition lord), see Edw. Harley's Jnl, p. 85. 75 Walpole, Mems. Geo. II, 1, pp. 25–6 (votes were 240:117 and 175:75). 76 Walpole, Mems. Geo. II, 1, pp. 213–6 (180:43). 77 Walpole, Mems. Geo. II, 1, pp. 218–9 (176:50). 78 Walpole, Mems. Geo. II, 1, pp. 242–3; PH, 14, pp. 1132–75 (236:54). 79 PH, 15, pp. 249–87 (Debate in the Commons on the Bill for extending the Mutiny Act to the East Indies, 245:50); Walpole, Mems. Geo. II, 1, p. 369. 80 For a contemporary report on the formation of these ministries see Waldegrave Mems., pp. 153–211. 81 As First Commissioner of the Treasury, while the Earl of Holdernesse was Secretary of State for the Northern Department. 82 See the figures in Sir L. Namier and J. Brooke (eds.), The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1754–1790, 3 vols (London, 1964, reprinted 1985), vol. 1, pp. 62–3, with the reservations expressed by politicians like the Duke of Newcastle and William Pitt with regard to these majorities on paper. 83 See C. Jones, ‘The Commons’ Address of Thanks in Reply to the King's Speech, 13 November 1755: Rank and Status Versus Politics', Parliamentary History 25 (2006), pp. 232–44. 84 CJ, 28, p. 298; Walpole, Mems. Geo. II, 2, pp. 61–2, PH, 15, p. 541. 85 See Walpole, Mems. Geo. II, 2, pp. 55–60. 86 Walpole, Mems. Geo. 2, p. 62; Black, Pitt the Elder, p. 110. Besides Pitt, Henry Legge, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and George Grenville, Treasurer of the Navy, had spoken and voted against the address and were dismissed as well (Walpole, Mems. Geo. II, 2, pp. 53–4, 62; PH, 15, pp. 536–8), a good example that the principle of unanimity of the government was still lacking. 87 LJ, 28, p. 443; Walpole, Mems. Geo. II, 2, p. 105; PH, 15, p. 659 suggests 84:11. 88 Walpole, Mems. Geo. II, 2, p. 139; PH, 15, p. 663. 89 Walpole, Mems. Geo. II, 2, p. 201. 90 Waldegrave Mems., pp. 276–7; PH, 15, p. 769; Walpole, Mems. Geo. II, 2, p. 202. 91 This island, an important British naval base, fell to the French on 28 June 1756, see Walpole, Mems. Geo. II, 2, p. 226. 92 This administration was in existence for only four months, from 4 Dec. 1756 to 6 Apr. 1757. 93 Henry Legge was to become once more Chancellor of the Exchequer and George Grenville, later prime minister under George III, was appointed once again Treasurer of the Navy; for a first-hand account on the formation of the ministry see Waldegrave Mems., pp. 199–211. 94 As can be seen when comparing the Commons' Journals and Lords' Journals of 1757–60 with those of earlier and later periods. 95 See J.S. Corbett, England in the Seven Years' War: a Study in Combined Strategy, 2 vols (London, 1918). 96 See Black, Pitt the Elder, ch. 3 (‘War Minister’). R. Middleton, The Bells of Victory: the Pitt-Newcastle Ministry and the Conduct of the Seven Years' War, 1757–1762 (Cambridge, 1985), is more cautious on Pitt's role as war minister. 97 See especially the debates in the last phase of Lord North's administration, after the defeat of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, between Nov. 1781 and Mar. 1782, in PH, 22, culminating in the parliamentary precedent in the Commons of a direct motion of no confidence in the ministers on 15 Mar. 1782 which was rejected by a very small majority of 227 Yeas to 236 Noes (CJ, 38, pp. 896–7). Five days later, on 20 Mar. 1782, Lord North and the other ministers resigned after another motion for the removal of ministers had been announced.
Publication Year: 2010
Publication Date: 2010-04-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot