1628 ADDENDA 
Aberdeen laid it down in the clearest terms that if the minister 
advised the Queen to dissolve she would, as a matter of course, do 
80, although he did not suggest that the Queen should promise 
a dissolution in advance of the defeat of the Government. In the 
actual case in question the Queen permitted Lord Derby to know 
that he would have a dissolution if he were defeated. but as a matter 
of fact he was sustained on the vote of censure. 
Further, it may be pointed out that the advance of ministerial 
responsibility in the nineteenth century has been well marked. 
It 1s true that William IV did not, as was believed before the publica- 
tion of Lord Melbourne’s papers, dismiss the Melbourne Ministry in 
1834, but he was anxious for its retirement and eagerly accepted the 
opportunity afforded by the offer of resignation made by Lord 
Melbourne in a letter of November 12, as a result of Lord Althorp’s 
removal from the Commons.2 But in 1858 Lord Aberdeen spoke of 
a dismissal as out of the question and unprecedented. Moreover, 
in 1832 Lord Grey resigned when it appeared that the Reform Bill 
would be transformed in committee in the Lords, and the King 
tried to form a new Government, commissioning Lord Lyndhurst 
and the Duke of Wellington for this purpose. They failed in view 
of Peel’s refusal to consent to any reform measure, and then only 
was the authority given to the Prime Minister to create peers if 
aecessary.® In 1910-1 the King never attempted to form an 
alternative government, so important was it considered to keep 
she Crown out of political controversy.4 
Page 1517. The House of Lords declined on December 12 to 
accept the Naval Prize Bill, which would have enabled the Govern- 
ment to ratify the Declaration of London. In the Commons strong 
protests were made against the practice of not laying conventions 
before Parliament for authority to ratify, and it is clear that the 
growing tendency is to insist on giving Parliament a formal voice in 
ratification, not merely to ask it to legislate with a view to ratifica- 
tion. The example of foreign countries (e. g. France and Germany) 
is evidently having effect : see Lords Debates. x. 809-95 - Commons, 
xxxil, 1597 seq. 
Pace 1529. The Bill to increase the House of Lords as a Court by 
adding two judges was somewhat severely criticized in the Commons 
on the ground that the addition of further judges was needlessly 
expensive and was not asked for by the Dominion Governments, 
and it was left over at the end of the 1911 session : see Debates. xxx. 
2449-78, 2554. 
t Letters of Queen Victoria, iii. 289-91 ; in great measure owing to the fact 
of his being able to dissolve being known. 
* See Melbourne Papers, pp. 220-6 ; Maxwell, 4 Century of Empire, ii. 37-9 
the older view is seen in the Peel Letters, ii. 288 ; Todd, Parliamentary Govern- 
ment in England, i. 133-6; and even in Dicey, Law of the Constitution,’ pp. 429-32, 
* Anson, Law of the Constitution, i.¢ 355, 356 ; Maxwell, i. 335 seq. 
4 See Mr. Asquith in House of Commons Debates, xxix. 811 seq. : Lord Crewe 
in House of Lords Debates, ix. 836 seq.