Open main menu

The King–Byng affair was a Canadian constitutional crisis that occurred in 1926, when the Governor General of Canada, the Lord Byng of Vimy, refused a request by his prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, to dissolve parliament and call a general election.

The crisis came to redefine the role of governor general, not only in Canada but throughout the Dominions, becoming a major impetus in negotiations at Imperial Conferences held in the late 1920s that led to the adoption of the Statute of Westminster 1931. According to constitutional convention in the British Empire, the governor general once represented both the sovereign in his imperial council and in his Canadian council, but the convention had evolved with Byng's predecessors, the Canadian government, and the Canadian people into a tradition of non-interference in Canadian political affairs on the part of the British government. After 1931, the governor general remained an important figure in Canadian governance as a constitutional watchdog,[1] but the role was shorn of its previous imperial duties.[2]

Contents

The affairEdit

 
The Lord Byng of Vimy

In September 1925, William Lyon Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada, advised the Governor General, the Lord Byng of Vimy, to dissolve parliament and drop the writ for a general election, to which Lord Byng agreed. In the subsequent election, held on 29 October, Arthur Meighen's Conservative Party won 116 seats in the House of Commons to 101 for King's Liberals. Counting on the support of the Progressive Party, with its 28 seats, to overcome the Conservative plurality in the 15th Parliament, King (who had lost his seat in the election, and didn't regain a seat formally until February 1926 thanks to Charles McDonald) did not resign and remained in office as head of a minority government.

Strictly speaking, this was not a coalition government, as the Progressives were not given any Cabinet seats and were thus not a part of the government. Rather, it was to a considerable extent a continuation of the arrangement that had existed since the 1921 general election. King, whose government nominally oscillated between being a bare majority and a minority in the 14th Parliament, had come to rely on the relative lack of unity in the Progressive ranks to keep his premiership secure. The Liberals were therefore confident this arrangement could continue even though they were no longer the largest party. The Progressives' disdain for traditional party discipline meant that even if King and Progressive leader Robert Forke had both wanted to negotiate a formal multi-party coalition, Forke lacked the de facto authority needed to enforce such an arrangement within his own caucus.

Furthermore, Progressive MP's themselves were not in a position to accept cabinet appointments - at the time, new ministers were required by law to resign their seats and seek re-election in a by-election. These was usually a formality in that they were often unopposed, especially for new ministers from a traditional party that had just won a general election, but the Progressives' promise to vote in accordance with their constituents' wishes was interpreted as an implied promise not to accept cabinet posts since cabinet members were always expected to vote with the government. Any Progressive MP accepting a ministerial post would have to therefore had to immediately stand in a by-election in which he would have reason to be concerned that his supporters would be dissatisfied with his actions and perhaps seek to back a new candidate. Moreover, as things stood the Conservatives, who had just inflicted heavy losses on the Progressives, barely considered themselves obligated to honour their long-standing gentlemen's agreement between themselves and the Liberals by not opposing ministers in by-elections. Both King's by-election and a by-election involving a new minister were contested by Conservatives although neither challenger was successful and in both cases they formally stood as independents. Thus, it appears quite improbable that the Conservatives would have extended the traditional electoral courtesies to any new Progressive ministers.

On 30 October, King visited Byng after consulting with the rest of Cabinet and informed the Governor General that his government would continue until parliament decided otherwise.[3] Byng, who had suggested to King that he ought to resign with such a tenuous mandate, later stated he told the Prime Minister: "Well, in any event you must not at any time ask for a dissolution unless Mr Meighen is first given a chance to show whether or not he is able to govern", to which King acquiesced.[4]

While Meighen and other Conservatives expressed public outrage at what they viewed as a desperate attempt on the part of King to cling to power, some Conservatives were privately relieved by King's decision; they seriously doubted whether the Tories could convince the Progressives to support a Conservative minority government, were confident that King's attempt to remain in power would eventually fail, and thought the expected debacle would be so damaging to the Liberals' reputation that the Conservatives would then be swept into office with a large majority.

ScandalEdit

A few months later, one of King's appointees in the Department of Customs and Excise was revealed to have taken bribes, after which the Conservatives alleged that the corruption extended to the highest levels of government, including the prime minister. King had already replaced the Minister of Customs and Excise, Jacques Bureau, with Georges Henri Boivin, but recommended that Byng appoint Bureau to the Senate. This further alienated the members of the Progressive Party. The Progressives were already distancing themselves from the government because of its failure to transfer control of Alberta's natural resources from the federal government to the province, but in June had saved the government from defeat in a no-confidence motion on the matter.[5]

 
William Lyon Mackenzie King

The Progressive Party's support was temporarily retained by the formation of a special committee to investigate the corruption in the customs department. Its report, which was presented to the House of Commons, acknowledged that there was widespread fraud in the department but did not specifically criticise the government. A Conservative Member of Parliament (MP), H. H. Stevens, proposed an amendment to the report which would effectively censure the government and compel it to resign. However, Labour MP J. S. Woodsworth proposed amending Stevens' amendment to remove the censure of the government and set up a Royal Commission to investigate the customs department further. The motion was defeated, despite the full support of the government. A Progressive MP, W. R. Fansher, then proposed that a Royal Commission be combined with the original motion of censure. The Speaker of the House ruled the motion out of order, but, on division, the members over-ruled the speaker and the Cabinet was defeated again. After a motion that the House adjourn, put forward by a Progressive member at King's behest, was subsequently also voted down, King announced that he would accept Fansher's amendment and secured an adjournment.[6]

Request for dissolutionEdit

To avoid the inevitable vote on the Fansher amendment, which would either force his government's resignation or bring his administration into disrepute, King went to Byng on 26 June 1926 seeking a dissolution of parliament.[7] Byng, though, using his reserve powers, refused the request, reminding King of their agreement made the previous October and arguing that the Conservatives, as the biggest single party in parliament, should have a chance to form a government before an election was called. For the next two days, the Prime Minister and the Governor General discussed the matter, with Byng asking King not to request a dissolution which he could not give and King twice requesting that Byng consult the British government prior to making any decision. Byng again refused, saying the matter should be settled in Canada, without resort to London.[8] With Byng remaining steadfast, King then, on 28 June, formally presented the Governor General with an Order in Council for the dissolution of parliament, which Byng declined to sign, on the grounds that the House of Commons should first be given the opportunity to decide if it could support a different government.[7] Thus, believing that he no longer had enough support to stay in office and having been refused his request, King resigned, per convention that requires a prime minister who has lost the support of the House of Commons to either step down or advise the governor general to drop the writs for an election.

Byng then invited Conservative leader Arthur Meighen to form a government. Although many Conservatives privately preferred an election, Meighen believed he was bound by honour and convention to accept Byng's invitation. Meighen thus formed a new Cabinet. At that time, convention dictated that the ministers of the Crown drawn from the House of Commons were obliged upon appointment to resign their seats in parliament and run for re-election. This posed a problem for Meighen: his and the other ministers' temporary absence would make the government extremely vulnerable in the event of a vote of non-confidence. Meighen circumvented this by advising the appointment to Cabinet of ministers without portfolio, who were not required to run for re-election. The Liberals were infuriated over this usage of "acting ministers" and obtained the support of the Progressives in a successful drive to bring down the Conservative minority government,[9] which lost confidence by only one vote.

Meighen subsequently requested a dissolution of parliament, which was granted by Byng, and an election was called. King's Liberals won a plurality of seats in the House of Commons, while Meighen lost his seat.[10]

LegacyEdit

Upon returning to power, King's government sought at an imperial conference to redefine the role of the governor general as a personal representative of the sovereign in his Canadian council and not of the British government (the king in his British council). The change was agreed to at the Imperial Conference of 1926 and came to be official as a result of the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and Statute of Westminster 1931.

In a letter to the Dominion's monarch, King George V, whom he represented in Canada as governor general, Byng expressed surprise that the Liberal leader, a staunch nationalist, had requested that Byng consult the Colonial Office in London over the matter.[11] Byng said: "I have to await the verdict of history to prove my having adopted a wrong course, and this I do with an easy conscience that, right or wrong, I have acted in the interests of Canada and implicated no one else in my decision."[12] The Colonial Secretary, Leo Amery, privately informed Byng that had he appealed to the British government for an answer, "I could only have replied ... that in my view it would not be proper for the Secretary of State to issue instructions to the Governor with regard to the exercise of his constitutional duties."[13]

Byng returned to the United Kingdom, leaving Canada on 30 September 1926 a much respected man, despite the political crisis. Some authorities have held that Byng was constitutionally obligated to refuse King's request; for example, Eugene Forsey argued that King's advice to Byng was "utterly unprecedented" and said further: "It was tantamount to allowing a prisoner to discharge the jury by which he was being tried ... If the Governor-General had granted the request, he would have become an accomplice in a flagrant act of contempt for Parliament."[14] The relatively brief time that King had served in office prior to seeking a dissolution has also been cited as a reason for denying his request. In the United Kingdom in 1950, the Lascelles Principles expressed the relevant constitutional conventions in the matter, in which the King–Byng controversy served as one of the underlying precedents.

Other authorities agreed with King, since, by custom, the Lord Byng of Vimy was obligated to heed the Prime Minister's request to call the election.[citation needed] In 1997, then Governor-General of New Zealand Sir Michael Hardie Boys expressed the opinion that Byng had been in error in not re-appointing King as prime minister and then granting the dissolution of parliament to King instead of Meighen.[15]

The King–Byng Affair was the most controversial use of a governor general's reserve powers until the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975, in which the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.

See alsoEdit

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ McWhinney, Edward (2005). The Governor General and the Prime Ministers: the Making and Unmaking of Governments. Vancouver: Ronsdale Press. p. 118. ISBN 1-55380-031-1.
  2. ^ Messamore, Barbara J. (2006). Canada's Governors General, 1847:1878: Biography and Constitutional Evolution. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-9061-4.
  3. ^ Williams, Jeffery (1992). Byng of Vimy: General and Governor General. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 305. ISBN 978-0-436-57110-7.
  4. ^ Williams 1992, p. 305
  5. ^ Williams 1992, p. 314
  6. ^ Williams 1992, pp. 314–315
  7. ^ a b Forsey, Helen (1 October 2010). "As David Johnson Enters Rideau Hall..." The Monitor. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Retrieved 23 January 2011.
  8. ^ Williams 1992, pp. 315–317
  9. ^ Levine, Allan (2011). King: William Lyon Mackenzie King: A Life Guided by the Hand of Destiny. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre. pp. 159–160. ISBN 978-1-55365-560-2.
  10. ^ http://www.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/Compilations/ElectionsandRidings/ResultsParty.aspx?Season=0&Parliament=208ab68e-34ac-423b-abb9-1723ff5a6a2c
  11. ^ Hubbard, R. H. (1977). Rideau Hall. Montreal and London: McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 158. ISBN 978-0-7735-0310-6.
  12. ^ Nicolson, Harold (1952). King George the Fifth, His Life and Reign. London: Constable & Co. Ltd. pp. 475–477. ISBN 978-0-09-453181-9.
  13. ^ Williams 1992, p. 319
  14. ^ Forsey, Eugene (1 October 2010), Forsey, Helen (ed.), "As David Johnson Enters Rideau Hall...", The Monitor, Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, retrieved 23 January 2011
  15. ^ Boys, Michael Hardie (10 September 1997), written at Christchurch, Office of the Governor-General of New Zealand (ed.), Public Law Class at College House Christchurch, Wellington: Queen's Printer for New Zealand, retrieved 6 December 2010

Further readingEdit

External linksEdit