the other predominated in the legislature. Thus, from the beginning of 1699 till the general election of 1705, the harmony, which had been temporarily established between the servants of the crown and the representatives of the people, ceased. No portion of our parliamentary history is less pleasing or more instructive. Deprived of the constitutional control afforded by the presence of ministers of the crown, in whom they were willing to confide, the painful scenes of the earlier years of this reign were re-enacted, and again “the House of Commons become altogether ungovernable; abused its gigantic power with unjust and insolent caprice, browbeat king and lords, the courts of common law and the constituent bodies, violated rights guaranteed by the Great Charter, and at length made itself so odious that the people were glad to take shelter under the protection of the throne and of the hereditary aristocracy, from the tyranny of the assembly which had been chosen by themselves." 1

In fact, with all his penetration, the king failed to perceive that the true remedy for these evils lay in the formation of an entirely new ministry possessed of the confidence of that parliamentary majority which he had found to be so unmanageable. He contented himself with making some minor changes; and, with a view to conciliate the opposition, selected his new appointments from the Tory ranks. "But the device proved unsuccessful; and it soon appeared that the old practice of filling the chief offices of state with men taken from various parties, and hostile to one another, or at least unconnected with one another, was altogether unsuited to the new state of affairs; and that, since the Commons had become possessed of supreme power, the only way to prevent them from abusing that power with boundless folly and violence, was to entrust the government to a ministry which enjoyed their confidence." 2

In 1702 William III. closed his eventful career, and was succeeded by Anne, during the greater part of Queen Anne. whose reign conflicts, of more or less intensity, prevailed between the Whigs and the Jacobites, both in and out of parliament.

As yet no better system of government existed than that afforded by a ministry who, although they had seats in parlia2 Ib. pp. 184-187.

Macaulay, v. 5, p. 168.

ment, were neither necessarily united amongst themselves, nor in harmony with the predominant political party in the legislature. Thus far the lessons of wisdom, taught by the experience of the preceding reign, had not been duly appreciated by succeeding statesmen. As a natural consequence, the queen's ministers were unable, at first, to control the legislature. But after awhile, the splendid successes of Marlborough in the Netherlands, in the campaigns of 1705 and 1706, gave strength to the government, and restored their supremacy. Thenceforward, the usual changes occurred in successive administrations, each party preponderating in turn, and then having to give place to their rivals. But no events took place during this reign of material importance in the history of parliamentary government, with the exception of the formal repeal of the ill-advised provisions in the Act of Settlement in regard to the privy council, and the disqualification of office-holders elected to parliament, which, had they ever come into operation, would have hindered the development of cabinet governments, and have excluded the queen's ministers, in common with other placemen, from a seat in the House of Commons. Shortly afterwards, as we have seen, a new Place Bill was enacted, which expressly sanctioned their presence in parliament, thereby affixing the seal of legislative approval to the new constitutional system, and establishing it upon a firm and unimpeachable basis.

2

Complete ac

responsibility.

It is in this reign, in the year 1711, that we first meet with a positive declaration, in a debate in the House of Lords, that the sovereign ought not to be held knowledgment personally responsible for acts of government, but of ministerial that, "according to the fundamental constitution of this kingdom, the ministers are accountable for all." 4 Furthermore, that there is no prerogative of the crown that may be exempted from parliamentary criticism and advice."

1

[Mr. Todd lays insufficient stress in this passage on the history of the reign of Anne. The gradual transformation of the Godolphin ministry from a Tory to a Whig administration, i.e. from an administration appointed by the crown to an administration reflecting the views of the House of Commons, is a striking proof of the transition which was being effected from government by prerogative to parliamentary government. See Edin. Rev. No. 346, p. 318.-Editor.] 3 See ante, p. 245.

2 4 Anne, c. 8, secs. 24, 25.

Parl. Hist. v. 6, p. 972; Hearn, Eng. Govt. p. 135. 5 Parl. Hist. v. 6, p. 1038.

But, in the exercise of their acknowledged freedom of debate upon the conduct of the administration, there was some difficulty at first as to the phraseology to be employed in parliament to designate the queen's advisers. Thus, on the occasion above mentioned, a discussion arose as to the propriety of using the term "cabinet council" in an address to the queen. Through inadvertence this expression had been embodied in a formal motion; but it was afterwards objected to, as being “a word unknown in our law." In the course of the debate, Lord Peterborough told the House that he had heard the privy council defined as a body “who were thought to know everything and knew nothing," and the cabinet as those "who thought nobody knew anything but themselves." 1

More than half a century afterwards, in the elaborate treatises of Blackstone and De Lolme upon the British constitution, the existence of the cabinet was entirely ignored, and no writer has hitherto attempted to trace the rise and progress of this institution, and to explain, in detail, its formation and functions.2

1 Parl. Hist. v. 6, p. 974; and see Knight, Hist. of Eng. v. 5, p. 168. 2 See Macaulay, Hist. of Eng. v. 4, pp. 535, 437. It is also very remarkable that in none of the writings of the statesmen, who framed the constitution of the United States, is there any indication that they were acquainted with the position then occupied by the English cabinet (Hearn, Govt. of Eng. p. 196; and see Int. Rev. March, 1877, p. 242).

CHAPTER II.

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE CABINET.

government.

IN entering upon this branch of our subject, it will be profitable to inquire more particularly into the origin and working of three cardinal principles of parliamentary govern- Cardinal ment, to which-taken in connection with the principles of authoritative introduction of ministers into the parliamentary legislature-we owe its present organization and efficiency. These are (1) the rule (already partially considered) which requires political unanimity in the cabinet; (2) the practice of simultaneous changes of the whole cabinet, as a result of its dependence upon parliamentary majorities; (3) the office of prime minister, as a means of perfecting the machinery of administration, and of ensuring the carrying out of a policy that shall be acceptable alike to the sovereign and to parliament.

the cabinet.

(1) The rule requiring political unanimity in the cabinet is the result of the changes traced in the preceding chapter. William III., as we have seen, was convinced of the The principl advantages resulting from a bond of political agree- of unanimity in ment between the members of his cabinet, and formed his ministry in 1695 on this basis. A partial attempt was made by the House of Commons, in 1698, to hold all the leading ministers responsible for advising the obnoxious partition treaties.1 But the value of the principle was not sufficiently appreciated either by the statesmen of that period or by the king himself. In the various changes which ensued in the composition of the ministry during the remainder of this reign, it was lost sight of, and men of opposite parties were included in the same cabinet. So long as the king was regarded as paramount in the government, and his views as those which should always prevail in council, this discordance

1 See ante, p. 54; Parl. Deb. v. 6, p. 327.

of opinion was comparatively unimportant. But, in proportion as the dogma of the royal impersonality began to prevail, and the power of the cabinet to increase, the necessity for political agreement amongst the ministers of the crown became more obvious and indisputable.

The ministries appointed by Queen Anne, however, exhibited the same want of agreement apparent in the later ministries of William III. Upon her accession, in 1702, her Majesty, whose personal inclinations were in favour of Tory principles, lost no time in forming a new ministry, consisting for the most part of Tories, that continued in office until 1705, when it underwent extensive changes, which gave the predominance to the Whigs.1 In 1707, the cabinet was again partially remodelled, and rendered still more Whiggish, Mr. Secretary Harley being the only Tory of note who was permitted to remain. But, in the following year, Harley himself was removed, for endeavouring "to set up for himself, and to act no longer under the direction of the lord treasurer." Soon afterwards the Earl of Pembroke retired, and the veteran Whig, Lord Somers, was recalled to office, so that at length the ministry consisted entirely of Whigs.2 But about this time, through the influence of Dr. Sacheverell, Tory principles began to get the ascendency throughout England, whereupon the queen took occasion, in 1710, to dismiss her ministry and entrust the formation of another to Harley, the acknowledged leader of the Tory party. Harley, at first, attempted a coalition with the Whigs, but, not succeeding, he obtained the queen's consent to a dissolution of parliament, there being evident tokens that the existing Whig House of Commons would probably be replaced by one of opposite politics. This anticipation proved correct, and Harley had therefore no difficulty in forming a cabinet composed exclusively of Tories.3 But even then political union was not obtained. Harley was a dissenter, strongly inclined to toleration, Queen Anne's and suspected of Hanoverian proclivities. cabinets. principal colleague, Bolingbroke, on the contrary, favoured the Jacobites, and was no friend either to Whiggery or dissent. This occasioned frequent disagreements, and even personal altercations in the council chamber, and in the 1 Stanhope, Queen Anne, pp. 176, 204.

Discord in

2 Ib. pp. 325, 335, 366, 372, 403.

Ib. c. xii.

His