King's council in Parlia ment. a of England.' This statement, if true in the main, must nevertheless be taken with considerable allowance. It may indeed be safely admitted that the doctrine that the sovereign is not responsible is doubtless as old as any part of our constitution, and the doctrine that his ministers are responsible is also of immemorial antiquity.' 'b We have indisputable evidence, that at an early relation to period Parliament evinced much anxiety respecting the appointments of the members of the king's council; and although their nomination and removal were vested in the crown, the sovereign seems to have been careful to select those who were acceptable to the Lords and Commons. The king's councillors were frequently appointed and sworn in Parliament; and the regulations by which the council was governed were often the subject of parliamentary discussion' and enactment. And, A.D. 1389. so far back as the reign of Richard II. an instance is recorded wherein the king's councillors maintained their opinions in opposition to those of their royal master, with an amount of firmness which could scarcely have been exhibited unless they were conscious of a measure of responsibility to the national council for their behaviour in office.d Furthermore, our constitutional annals, from the A.D. 1189. reign of Richard I., furnish occasional precedents of ministers of the crown being called to account, and condemned, in the great council of the realm, for acts of misgovernment, and of petitions being presented to the king in Parliament complaining of mismanagement on the part of his judges and ministers, to which, in the language of an old writer, 'the king very frequently Toulmin Smith, Parl. Rem. с Nicolas, Proc. P. C. v. 1, p. ii. ; Dicey, pp. 12, 17. And see ante, vol. 1, pp. 79, 82. Nicolas, Proc. P. C. v. 1, p. xv. And see Macaulay, Hist. of England, v. 1, pp. 29-32. answered, let any man complain and he shall find remedy, and such answer of the king was a satisfaction to the subjects, for redress of the grievance soon followed.' e And at a later period, the necessity for obtaining supplies for the service of the crown contributed to induce the sovereign to defer to the expressed wishes of Parliament, and remove from office ministers of state and other functionaries who had given offence by their public conduct. rial re bility. The forms of the constitution, which required that Ministe the king should always communicate with his ministers, sponsi and perform every act of state through a privy councillor, afforded to the ancient Parliament of England the means of fixing the responsibility for acts of the crown upon those who had been parties in giving effect to the same, and who were liable to impeachment by the House of Commons for misconduct in office. But, after all, these examples do not betoken the existence, in the case of ministers of the crown under prerogative government, of a responsibility to the country, or to Parliament, in the modern acceptation of the term. The formal introduction of this important principle into our constitutional system was to be the work of another generation. council. The practice of consulting a few confidential ad- A select visers, in preference to, and instead of, the whole Privy Council, was doubtless resorted to by the sovereigns of England from a very early period. Stubbs says that from the close of the minority of Henry III. we first distinctly trace the action of an inner royal council, distinct from the Curia regis and from the common council First mention of a cabinet. of the realm. Two centuries later, Lord Bacon (in his Essays on Councils) cites the example of King Henry VII., who, in his greatest business, imparted himself to none, except it were to Morton and Fox.' While affairs of state were, for the most part, debated in the Privy Council, in presence of the king, it naturally happened that some councillors, more eminent than the rest, should form juntos or cabals, for closer and more secret cooperation, or should be chosen by the sovereign as his most intimate and confidential advisers. These statesmen came at length to be designated as the cabinet, from the circumstance of their deliberations being conducted in an inner room, or cabinet, of the council apartments in the royal palace. But no resolutions of state, or other overt act of government, were finally taken without the deliberation and assent of the Privy Council, who then, as now, were the only advisers of the crown recognised by law. We first meet with the term 'Cabinet Council,' in contradistinction to that of Privy Council, in the reign of Charles I. Clarendon, in his History of the Rebellion,' after describing the condition of the government at the time the great Council of Peers was convened at York by the king, in September 1640, and mentioning that the burthen of state affairs rested principally upon the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Earl of Strafford, and Lord Cottington, proceeds to state that some five or six others being added to them, on account of their official position and tried ability, these persons made up the committee of state (which was reproachfully after called the Juncto, and enviously then in court the Cabinet Council), who were upon all occasions, when the secretaries received any extraordinary intelligence, or were to make any extraordinary despatch, or as often otherwise as was thought fit, to meet: whereas the body of the Hallam, Const. Hist. v. 3, p. 6 iStubbs' Const. Hist. v. 2, pp. 40, 240, 255. 249. council observed set days and hours for their meeting, and came not else together except specially summoned.'* In another place he says the practice then prevailed of admitting many persons of inferior abilities into the Privy Council merely as an honorary distinction, and that thus the Council grew so large that, for that and other reasons of unaptness and incompetency, committees of dexterous men have been appointed out of the table to do the business of it.' And he remarks that one of the grounds of Strafford's attainder was a discourse of his in the committee of state, which they called the Cabinet Council.' Again, in his 'Autobiography,' he mentions that when, after Lord Falkland's death, in 1643, Lord Digby replaced him as secretary of state, he was no sooner admitted and sworn secretary of state and privy councillor, and consequently made of the Junto which the king at that time created -consisting of the Duke of Richmond, the Lord Cottington, the two secretaries of state, and Sir John Colepepper-but the chancellor of the exchequer (Clarendon himself, then Mr. Hyde) was likewise added; to the trouble, at least the surprise, of the master of the rolls (Sir J. Colepepper), who could have been contented that he should have been excluded from that near trust, where all matters were to be consulted before they should be brought to the council-board.' m cabinets. The introduction of this method of government by Unpopu means of a cabinet was exceedingly distasteful to the larity of whole community. It was one of the innovations against which the popular feeling was directed in the first years of the Long Parliament. The Grand Remonstrance, addressed by the House of Commons to Charles I., in 1641, set forth that such councillors and other ministers of state only should be employed by the king as could obtain the * Clar. Hist. Reb. book 2, p. 226 (edit. 1819). 1 Ib. book 3. p. 85. Cromwell. Restoration of the confidence of Parliament." And in the Second Remonstrance, issued in January 1642, complaint is made of 'the managing of the great affairs of the realm in Cabinet Councils, by men unknown and not publicly trusted.'° During the protectorate of Cromwell, cabinets were unknown. The government of the country was conducted by the supreme will of the great dictator, assisted by a council of state, which should at no time exceed twenty-one members, nor be less than thirteen. But public affairs were chiefly transacted by certain committees of Parliament, until it became evident that these committees were assuming too much authority, when the Long Parliament itself was summarily abolished by this mighty autocrat, who was not disposed to submit his will to constitutional restraints. The legislative assemblies subsequently convened by Cromwell were too much under his own control to offer any serious obstructions to his government. Immediately upon the restoration of monarchy, in monarchy. 1660, the Privy Council was reconstituted by the king, and resumed its original functions. But the public mind at this period was not in the humour to reopen the difficult question of the relations between the sovereign and Parliament, and Charles II. was too fond of pleasure, and of his own prerogative, to be willing to agree to anything which would encroach upon either. But he was not averse to an attempt to render the Privy Council itself more efficient. For, after the Restoration, the Privy Council included all those who had been members of the Privy Council of Charles I., amongst whom were faithful royalists; but there were also some who had espoused the cause of the Parliament. The number of councillors," and the doubtful loyalty of some of them, rendered the existing body an 1660. Forster's Grand Remonstrance, pp. 272. 273. • Clar. Hist. Reb. book 4, p. 537. And see book 7. P For a list of the privy councillors of England from the Restoration |