Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

scheme.

Temple's concerns the laws'; the peers and landed gentry, by their large possessions, to be fit representatives of the national wealth, so that at the worst, and upon a pinch,' they might out of their own stock furnish the king, so far as to relieve some great necessity of the

crown.'g

On April 21, 1679, the king nominated his new council, and in person announced its formation to Parliament, informing them that he had made choice of such persons as were worthy and able to advise him; and that he was resolved, in all his weighty and important affairs, next to the advice of his great council in Parliament (which he should very often consult with), to be advised by them." But though planned for the express purpose of conciliating the approbation of Parliament, or at any rate, of the constituent body, should a dissolution of Parliament become necessary, this novel scheme of administration wholly failed to obtain public confidence. And with reason, for it aimed at reconciling two inconsistent principles; the appointment of some ministers solely because they were acceptable to the king, and of others merely for the sake of their influence in Parliament. It was moreover of too unwieldy dimensions for a governing body. For there was to be no interior cabinet; but all the thirty were to be entrusted with every political secret, and summoned to every meeting. Notwithstanding its apparent plausibility, and the welcome accorded to it by some of the most eminent statesmen of the day, this elaborate device was of very short-lived duration. Parliament received it coldly, and no wonder, since, on Temple's own admission, the authority of the new council was designed to counterbalance the increasing influence of the legislature. Internal dissensions arose in the council itself, through

Temple's Memoirs, v. 2, p. 34;
Dicey, p. 66.
Lords' Jour. v. 13, p. 530.

241.

Temple's Memoirs, v. 2, p. 34.
Macaulay, Hist. of Eng. v. 1, p.

Temple's

the introduction of certain members who were opposed Failure of to the court; and at last Temple dealt a finishing stroke scheme. to his own creation, by consenting to form an interior council therein; though the essence of his scheme had been that the whole body should always be consulted. After the failure of this notable project the king, in open disregard of his solemn engagement to the contrary, sought thenceforth to govern according to his own caprice.'

k

Ephemeral and impracticable as it was, Temple's project is not without interest, as it serves to mark an important stage in the transition from government by prerogative, administered through the whole Privy Council, and parliamentary government through the instrumentality of a cabinet.

During the rest of the reign of Charles II., as well as during the short and stormy career of his unfortunate successor, the king's council shared the odium and unpopularity of their royal master. James II. introduced into his council several Roman Catholics, who were naturally regarded by the nation with mistrust. Continued But the great blot in its composition continued to be unpopu larity of that which was pointed out in the Grand Remonstrance, the namely, that it did not consist of men in whom Parlia- council. ment was willing to repose its confidence. Its proceedings, moreover, were conducted with such secresy, that it was impossible to determine upon whom to affix the responsibility of any obnoxious measure. After a very brief duration, James's unpopular reign terminated in his abdication and flight. With the revolution The revo which placed the house of Orange upon the throne of lution. England, a new era commenced, full of promise to the friends of constitutional government. There was happily no need, on this occasion, for new fundamental laws to be enacted, or for another constitution to be framed.

Dicey on the Privy Council, p. 67.

Subsequent

of the

council.

Important amendments to existing laws were doubtless required, and further securities to protect the liberty of the subject from aggression; but the effort to secure these benefits was by no alteration of the established polity, but by restoring our ancient constitution to its first principles, and reviving a spirit of harmony between the crown and Parliament.1

During the earlier part of the reign of William III., condition however, nothing was done to improve the efficiency and accountability of the Privy Council, beyond the selection of men to form part of the same in whom the king himself could thoroughly confide. Relying upon his personal popularity, and unwilling to share his authority with others, the king was reluctant to make any change which would lessen his own power. At length an opportunity presented itself whereby the Parliament could exact from the crown additional guarantees for constitutional rights. It was necessary to make legislative provision for the succession of the crown, in the Protestant line, in default of issue of the reigning sovereign, and of the Princess Anne, the heiress presumptive, by acknowledging the right of the Princess Sophia, of Hanover, and her issue, being Protestants, to inherit the throne. Parliament took advantage of this juncture to obtain the grant of further liberties, which should take effect upon the accession of the house of Hanover. In the Act of Settlement (12 & 13 William III. c. 2) a clause was introduced-aimed at the existence of the obnoxious Cabinet,' which continued to be unpopular in Parliament"-enacting that from and after the time aforesaid, 'all matters and things relating to the well governing of this kingdom, which are properly cognisable in the Privy Council by the laws and customs of this realm, shall be transacted there, and all resolu

Act of Settlement.

[ocr errors]

1 Macaulay, Hist. of Eng. v. 2, pp. 657-662; ante, vol. 1, pp. 3, 4.

m See Parl. Hist. vol. v. pp. 722733.

tions taken thereupon shall be signed by such of the Privy Council as shall advise and consent to the same.' But this measure, as we have already noticed in a former chapter," proved abortive, and was repealed before it went into operation. It was founded upon error, as it endeavoured to enforce the responsibility of ministers without its natural correlative, namely, their recognised presence in the two Houses of Parliament to render an account of their stewardship.

The point specially aimed at by the regulation requiring members of the Privy Council to sign their resolutions was, evidently, in order to identify those who were responsible for any given act or proceeding. Cox, in his Institutes (pp. 244-246), discusses this question, and shows that while in some cases it might be possible for a minister, by extreme caution, to prevent the existence of any direct evidence of his advice to the crown, it is probable that, in matters of moment, his papers and official acts would generally betoken the nature of his counsels.

of the

House of

Commons.

Meanwhile, the House of Commons, having proved State its strength, was rapidly acquiring increased power. But for the want of proper control, it was a prey to caprice, indecision, endless talking to no purpose, and factious squabbling. The truth was that the change which the revolution had made in the House of Commons had made another change necessary; and that other change had not yet taken place. There was parliamentary government: but there was no ministry.' In other words, although the chief offices in the government were filled by persons who sat in Parliament, yet these offices were distributed not unequally between the two great parties,' and the men who held those offices were perpetually caballing against each other, haranguing against each other, moving votes of censure on each other; exhibiting articles of impeachment against each other; and, as a natural consequence, the

6

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

First parlia. mentary ministry

temper of the House of Commons was wild, ungovernable, and uncertain."

In this juncture, a plan was happily devised which, while it was calculated to conserve the weight and influence that rightfully appertained to the crown in the conduct of public business in Parliament, also afforded the means of successfully controlling its turbulent majorities, and of permanently conciliating their goodwill. By the advice of Sunderland, the king resolved to construct a ministry upon a common bond of political agreement, the several members of which being of accord upon the general principles of state policy, would be willing to act in unison in their places in Parliament.' Gradually, as opportunity offered, the Tory element in the existing administration was eliminated, so that, at last, its political sentiments were in harmony with the prevailing opinions of the majority of the House of Commons. When this had been accomplished, the servants of the crown in Parliament possessed the double advantage of being the authorised representatives of the government, and the acknowledged leaders of the strongest party in the popular chamber. By this happy contrivance the Parliament, through whose patriotic endeavours the monarchy had been restored, and the liberties of the people effectually consolidated, was recognised as a great integral part of the constitution, without which no act of government could have a real vitality.'

Before the revolution, as has been already noticed, Parliaments were wont to be considered as a troublesome incumbrance, whose chief use was to vote money for the service of the crown. It had been the continual endeavour of the Stuarts to dispense, as far as possible, with the aid of Parliaments. On the other hand, the experience of the civil war, and of the earlier years of the Commonwealth, had proved that the attempt of • Ib. pp. 438, 443-446.

Macaulay, v. 4, 1

p. 437.

Ante, vol, 1. p. 93.

« AnteriorContinuar »