he designates it, "as a combining committee, a hyphen which joins, a buckle which fastens, the legislative part of the state to the executive part of the state." 1 Only one of these propositions, the first, is a definition of what the Cabinet is. The other is a statement, rather, of one of the most important things which it does. I do not think either the definition or the statement satisfactory. Professor Gneist calls the Cabinet the Council of Ministers, i.e. those members of the Privy Council, who are the heads, for the time being, of the executive departments.2 This, however, is merely a statement of its composition. Todd refers to, rather than defines, the Cabinet as the connecting link between the Crown and Parliament.3 This is again only a statement of one of the chief things which it accomplishes. We must regard the Cabinet from the threefold standpoint of history, composition, and powers, before we can gain a conception of it in any degree adequate. 1. Historically the Cabinet sprang from the Privy Council. It is almost impossible to follow minutely the genesis of this most curious and powerful organ. We can, however, indicate the chief stages in its development. The Privy Council was originally composed of members chosen by the Crown and dismissed by the Crown at pleasure. By its advice and through its aid, the Crown governed in every direction. The rise of the regular courts of law in the twelfth century, and of the Parliament in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, withdrew from it, in an increasing degree, the judicial and the legislative functions, but left it in possession of its adminis trative functions.5 It regained much of its other and earlier powers through the energy of the Tudors, but by the middle of the Stuart régime it had become essentially an administrative organ, though possessed still of many fragments of the 1 Bagehot, The English Constitution, p. 82. 2 Gneist, Das englische Verwaltungsrecht, S. 660. 8 Todd, Parliamentary Government in England, vol. i, p. 3. legislative and judicial powers. The attempt of the Stuarts to restore to it its ancient prerogatives brought the revolution of 1640-88, which fixed upon it definitely its administrative character, though still leaving to it some of the fragments of the legislative and judicial powers. During the Tudor period it had suffered at least two important changes in its internal organization. Down to that epoch, it was customary for every branch of its business. to be transacted by the whole body. In the year 1553, King Edward VI separated the Council into five commissions, or committees, and assigned a distinct branch of the public business to each.1 These committees are the earliest forms of the present ministerial or executive departments. The other change wrought by the Tudors was the introduction into the Council of the private secretaries of the King or Queen regnant, as mediators of all the business between the Crown and the Council.2 It is easy to see how the attachment of a secretary to each of the committees of the Council would create ministerial departments, with a secretary at the head of each as the channel of communication between each and the Crown. I cannot assert that this was actually the course of the development, but it appears to me very probable. Under such a form of organization the unity of the administration would be expressed only in the Crown. The administration would be independent and monarchic. The full Council would not be much more than a debating society. The way was now open, however, for the Crown to create a new unity within the Council, if it should choose to do so, by bringing together, as a single and separate body, the secretaries or heads of the executive committees of the Council, It was something of this sort that Charles II did 1 Dicey, The Privy Council, p. 39; Todd, Parliamentary Government in England, vol. i, p. 91. 2 Dicey, The Privy Council, p. 40; Todd, Parliamentary Government in England, vol. i, p. 91. in the year 1679.1 He desired to get rid of the endless debates in the full Council, and do the public business with more ease, secrecy and despatch. He did not feel able to dispense with the Council altogether and govern through the separate heads of the departments, so he formed a cabinet, or lesser Council, out of the heads of the ministerial departments, adding a very few others, high in his confidence, whom we would now designate as ministers without portfolios, and began the transaction of the public business with and through them alone. At first this was felt to be a dangerous innovation, and two attempts at least were made to restore the Council to its former position. Both failed, simply because the Cabinet proved itself to be much better adapted to the wants of practical administration than the full Council.2 If the change from administration by the full Council to administration by the Cabinet meant danger to political liberty, this danger must be met in some other way than by the restoration of the powers of the Council. King William III led the way to the solution of the question when he took his ministers from among the dominant party in the Parliament. His intention in having the Crown represented in the Parliament by ministers who were the leaders of the majority, at least in the House of Commons, was undoubtedly to gain a strong hold upon the Parliament and secure a more ready and generous vote of supply to the Crown. What he really did was much more than this: it was to lay the groundwork both for the responsibility of the Ministry or Cabinet to the House of Commons and for party government. seems to have subsequently discovered these tendencies himself. He abandoned the policy in the later years of his reign. The policy, however, was one demanded by the spirit and 1 Dicey, The Privy Council, p. 65. 2 Hallam, Constitutional History of England, vol. iii, p. 185 ff. He conditions of the age. It reappeared under the Hanove rians; and since 1832 it has been the unquestioned custom of the constitution. 2. The Cabinet is, therefore, now composed of the heads of the executive departments, selected from among the members of Parliament and belonging to the party in the House of Commons dominant for the time being.2 The Crown selects the Prime Minister,3 and the Prime Minister selects the other members. It is possible, but not usual, to introduce a few persons into the Cabinet without portfolios. All persons, upon becoming cabinet ministers, become thereby privy councilors,5 if they are not already such, even though the position in the Cabinet should have been held for but a single instant, and they hold their membership in the Privy Council, like all other councilors, for the life of the King or Queen appointing them, and for six months after the decease of the said royal person, unless their tenure be terminated earlier by their own decease or by royal dismissal.6 3. The most important standpoint, however, from which to view the Cabinet, the standpoint from which the best comprehension of its essential character may be attained, is that of its powers over, and relations to, both the Crown and the houses of Parliament. I will first state what these powers and relations are, and then seek the principle upon which they rest. The Cabinet may demand of the King or Queen regnant the whole power of the Crown in every direction, and the royal person must confer it. The Cabinet may require the Crown to pack the House of Lords to its liking, and to dissolve the House of Commons, and the Crown must give ear 1 Todd, Parliamentary Government in England, vol. i, p. 112. 2 Gneist, Das englische Verwaltungsrecht, S. 660 ff. 8 Todd, Parliamentary Government in England, vol. i, p. 327. 6 Bowyer, Constitutional Law of England, p. 125 ff. in the year 1679.1 He desired to If the change from a to the House of ( seems to have sub self. He abandon The policy, howe 1 Dicey,' 2 Hall. $ Tod ad the mfc |