crushing defeat of the Whigs, that the Tory Ministry under Harley, now made Earl of Oxford, retained undisputed sway until the close of the Queen's reign (1714).

lishment of

the first two

It was, however, under the first two kings of the House Final estab of Hanover, the accession of whose dynasty was to have the Cabinet marked the extinction of the Cabinet system, that Parlia- system under mentary government by means of a Ministry-nominally Georges. the king's servants, but really an executive committee representing the will of the party majority for the time being in the House of Commons-was fully and finally established. This was due, in a great measure, to the personal character of George I. and George II., who, aliens in blood, in language, and in political sympathies, clung fondly to their beloved Hanover, and seemed to regard the kingship of Great Britain as an appendage, and rather an irksome appendage, to their small German Electorate.

The troublesome energies of Parliament,' observes Sir Erskine May, 'were an enigma to them; and they cheerfully acquiesced in the ascendency of able ministers who had suppressed and crushed pretenders to their crownwho had triumphed over parliamentary opposition, and had borne all the burthen of the Government. Left to the indulgence of their own personal tastes-occupied by frequent visits to the land of their birth, by a German court, favourites and mistresses-they were not anxious to engage more than was necessary in the turbulent contests of a constitutional government. Having lent their name and authority to competent ministers, they acted upon their advice, and aided them by all the means at the disposal of the Court.' This indifference of the first two Georges to Important everything not affecting the interests of their Continental dominions had most important and beneficial effects. It ference to English allowed the English Constitution to develop freely under a politics. kingship from which the element of personal royal power was for the time practically eliminated. George III., who 'gloried in the name of Briton' without understanding in

1 May, Const. Hist. i. 7.

effects of their indif

Macaulay's description of the minis

what it is that the glory of a Briton consists, strove hard throughout his reign to recover the ground lost under his two immediate predecessors; but the system of ministerial government with collective responsibility to the House of Commons was too firmly established to be overthrown, and is now regarded, though still unrecognized in the written Constitution, as a part of our polity almost as essential as the Parliament itself.

No conception of the English constitution, in its existing theory and practice, can have any approach to accuracy which does not include a firm grasp of the complicated and delicate nature of the Cabinet system-that unique production of the silent working of the political forces of the Nation towards the equilibrium in which, by means of that system, they now repose. Lord Macaulay was the first among our great historians to expound its true nature. 'The Ministry,' he tells us, 'is, in fact, a committee of leading members of the two Houses. It is nominated by the terial system. Crown; but it consists exclusively of statesmen whose opinions on the passing questions of the time agree in the main with the opinions of the majority of the House of Commons. Among the members of this committee are distributed the great departments of the administration. Each Minister conducts the ordinary business of his own office without reference to his colleagues. But the most important business of every office, and especially such business as is likely to be the subject of discussion in Parliament, is brought under the consideration of the whole Ministry. In Parliament the Ministers are bound to act as one man on all questions relating to the executive government. If one of them dissents from the rest on a question too important to admit of compromise, it is his duty to retire. While the Ministers retain the confidence of the parliamentary majority, that majority supports them against opposition and rejects every motion which reflects on them or is likely to embarrass them. If they forfeit that confidence, if the parliamentary majority is dissatisfied with the way in which patronage is distributed, with the way in which the pre

rogative of mercy is used, with the conduct of foreign affairs, with the conduct of a war, the remedy is simple they have merely to declare that they have ceased to trust the Ministry, and to ask for a Ministry which they can trust.'1

and Cabi

The expressions 'the Ministry' and 'the Cabinet' are 'Ministry' sometimes employed as though they were synonymous; net' not sy but such a use of them is misleading. The term Minis- nonymous. try' properly includes all the ministers, yet of these only a select number-usually about twelve, but liable to variation from time to time even in the same administration-constitute the inner council of the Crown, and incur the higher responsibilities, while they exercise the higher powers, of Government. The rest of the Ministry, although closely united with their brethren in the Cabinet, occupy a secondary and subordinate position.

Council dis

cil.

ters should

Although, as we have seen, historically connected in its Cabinet origin with the Privy Council, the Cabinet Council has tinct from now no connexion with that body, except that every Privy Coun member of it, if not already a Privy Councillor, is made one immediately on joining the Cabinet. But an essential characteristic of the Cabinet is that its members should combine in their persons the office of Minister of the Essential Crown with that of membership of one of the Houses of that Minis Parliament, and more especially of that House which be members of the Legisthough still conventionally termed the 'lower House' is lature. admittedly 'the greatest of the powers of the State.' The necessity for this rule has not however been unquestioned. 'A Cabinet which included persons not members of the legislative assembly might still,' says an eminent writer on the Constitution, 'perform all useful duties.' But independently of the practical inconveniences which, as he admitted, would beset the work of government by a Cabinet

1 Macaulay, Hist. Eng. ch. xx., Works (ed. 1866) iv. 44; and see Mr. Bagehot's English Constitution' for a spirited and able sketch of the conventional or unwritten constitution as contrasted both with the written or legal constitution and with the Presidential form of government in the United States of America.

Bagehot, Eng. Const. p. 13.

so constituted, it would no longer be, what it now is, 'a committee of the two Houses,' and would thus be disabled from performing its essential work as the regulator of the relations between the Crown, the House of Lords, and the Commons, and the means by which their theoretically conflicting powers are brought into practical harmony. But although the rule which requires the Minister to be a member of the legisiature is now firmly established, so that any deliberate and persistent departure from it would be justly regarded as utterly unconstitutional, yet there is no law or legal usage to render it binding; and it has at least once within the last half century been disregarded, though then only temporarily and in an individual case.

Secrecy of It is remarkable that a body wielding such vast powers the Cabinet. as the Cabinet should hold all its deliberations and adopt all its decisions in absolute secrecy. No official record, or minute of any kind, is kept of its proceedings; and even a private note is disliked. Nor is any non-member even allowed to be present at its sittings, except on the rare occasions when some departmental official is summoned to impart special information. This peculiarity has been animadverted upon by Hallam as an apparent deficiency in our constitutional security,' on account of the difficulty of legally proving the participation of any one member (except the Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for setting

The late Mr. Bagehot (Eng. Const. p. 14) defined the Cabinet 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. In its origin it belongs to the one, in its functions it belongs to the other.' But the Cabinet, he proceeds (p. 15), though it is a committee of the legislative assembly, is a committee with a power which no assembly would-unless for historical accidents, and after happy experience-have been persuaded to entrust to any committee. It is a committee which can dissolve the assembly which appointed it; it is a committee with a suspensive veto-a committee with a power of appeal. Though appointed by one Parliament, it can appeal if it chooses to the next. Theoretically, indeed, the power to dissolve Parliament is entrusted to the Sovereign only; and there are vestiges of doubt whether in all cases a Sovereign is bound to dissolve Parliament when the Cabinet asks him to do so. But neglecting such small and dubious exceptions, the Cabinet which was chosen by one House of Commons has an appeal to the next House of Commons.'

Mr. Gladstone was a Secretary of State between December 1845 and July 1846, without, from accidental circumstances, possessing a seat in the House of Commons. But the occurrence excited some animadversion at the time. — Gleanings of Past Years, i. 225.

the Great Seal to treaties and other documents) in any measures deserving of impeachment. It is indeed one of the many theoretical anomalies of the English Constitution, the delicate mechanism of which depends so largely for its efficient working upon the loyalty of the various depositaries of power. Should however this specific anomaly ever, unhappily, prove a practical difficulty, the vitality of the constitution will doubtless be equal to devising a practical remedy.

The chief of the Cabinet is the Prime Minister or, as he The Premier. is more commonly termed, the Premier. His position is not less peculiar or characteristic than that of the Cabinet itself. Officially, besides being a Privy Councillor, he is merely the First Lord of the Treasury, in which capacity he exercises, jointly with four others, the powers of the Lord High Treasurership, one of the great offices of the State which since the time of Harley has been thrown into commission. He has no legal primacy over the other members of the Cabinet, as is indeed necessarily the case in a body which has itself no legal status. In official precedence he ranks below many of the other ministers. He is selected by the Sovereign, whose choice, among natural-born subjects, is legally unrestrained: but in fact, the choice of the Sovereign is limited to the one or two members of the predominant political party who can command a majority in the House of Commons. When charged by the Sovereign with the task of forming an Administration he proceeds to the selection of occupants for the various ministerial offices, and submits their names for the approval of the Crown.3

1 Const. Hist. iii. 186–7.

Unless he happen to combine the office of Lord Privy Seal with that of First Lord of the Treasury.

The delicate relations of the Cabinet to the Crown on the one hand, and Relations of to the Houses of Parliament and the People on the other. as well as the the Cabinet internal relations of its members to one another and to the Premier, have not to the Crown yet been touched upon. They are indeed topics upon which none but a and to ParCabinet Minister is fully competent to speak. Fortunately we now possess an liament: account of them, at once graphic and authentic, from the pen of a most distinguished statesman and ex-Premier. The association,' says Mr. Gladstone, of the Ministers with the Parliament, and through the House of Commons with the People, is the counterpart of their association as Ministers with the