To the strictures of Lord Melbourne and Lord Morpeth on the Duke of Wellington’s temporary assumption of a combination of offices, it was replied by Sir Robert and the Duke that, though there might be inconvenience from the assumption of all those powers by one individual, it was so far from being unconstitutional, that it was a common practice for the Secretary for one department to act for another during intervals of recreation, or periods of ill-health; that there was ample precedent for such a proceeding.  In the last week of the life of Queen Anne, the Duke of Shrewsbury had united three of the greatest posts of the kingdom, those of Lord Treasurer, Lord Chamberlain, and Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, with the sanction of that great constitutional lawyer, Lord Somers.  And in 1827 Mr. Canning had retained the seals of the Foreign Office for some weeks after his appointment as First Lord of the Treasury.  Moreover, there was actually a law which provided that when the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer is vacant the seals of that office shall be delivered to the Chief-justice; and under this rule, in the latter part of the reign of George II., Chief-justice Lord Mansfield had continued finance-minister for above three months.  And, as to the practical result of what had been done in the present instance, the Duke affirmed, what, indeed, was universally admitted, that the arrangement had from the first been understood to be merely temporary; that no inconvenience had resulted from it; indeed, that “not a single act had been done in any one of the offices which had not been essentially necessary for the service of the country.”

The first two points on which the ministry was assailed it seems superfluous to examine, since it is clear that the position taken up by Sir Robert Peel is impregnable:  that, on every view of the principles and practice of the constitution, there was no doubt of the right of the sovereign to dismiss his ministers or to dissolve the Parliament at his pleasure; and that those acts can only be judged of by a consideration of their expediency.  Inexpedient, indeed, the dismissal of the preceding ministry is generally considered to have been, even in the interest of the Conservatives themselves.  But inexpedient the dissolution can hardly be pronounced to have been, since, though the new election failed to give them a majority in the House of Commons, it beyond all doubt greatly strengthened their minority.  On the other hand, though it cannot be denied that the House of Commons has a perfect right to express its disapproval of any or every act of the minister, it is not so clear that Lord Morpeth’s invitation to it to express its dissatisfaction with this particular act of dissolution was, on general principles, expedient or safe; since such a vote is making a perilous approach to claiming for the House the right of being asked for its consent to its own dissolution, a claim the admission of which had been one of the most fatal, if not the most fatal, of all the concessions of Charles I.