A.D. 1422. regards the issue of royal patents, grants, &c., they still continue in operation, with but little change-excepting that grants which were formerly superintended by the Privy Council now pass through the office of a Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the end which was intended to be promoted by these regulations was not in accordance with the modern idea of ministerial responsibility. They were designed for the security of the crown itself, against fraudulent or unnecessary grants; and for this purpose, numerous official personages were required to take part in the investigation into and decision upon petitions to the crown. They were also intended to enforce the necessity for consulting the council before the king should determine upon any application for redress. But, after all, the responsibility of ministers for the faithful discharge of their high functions was to the crown, and not to Parliament.b It was during the reign of Henry VI. that the ordinary' or 'permanent' council first assumed the name of the Privy Council.' The habitual attendants at the council, by whom the ordinary business was transacted, came, at this time, to be distinguished from other members of the same body who, like the judges, were only occasionally summoned by the king. During the minority of Henry VI. this distinction was the more apparent, as the whole government was in the hands of a select number of the king's council. Ordinances of council passed in this reign provide for securing privacy at council meetings, and the keeping its resolves secret, by forbidding any to attend thereat unless specially summoned. Meetings of the great council' were occasionally held by the king's command. But it is clear that under Henry VI. a select council was gradually emerging from out of the larger body, by a process similar to that which afterwards a Cox, Eng. Govt. p. 648. vi. p. cc. &c. vol vii. p. v. Dicey, Sir H. Nicolas, Proc. P. C. vol. p. 21. gave birth to the Cabinet from the womb of the Privy Council.c before the council. The business which engaged the attention of the king's Business council during the epoch under review was of the most multifarious description, and its proceedings exhibit an extraordinary combination of the executive and legislative functions of the government. Grave affairs of state, and questions of domestic and foreign policy; the preservation of the king's peace, and the management of the public finances; the affairs of aliens, the regulation of trade, the settlement of ecclesiastical disputes, and the defence of the faith against heretics and sorcerers-all these subjects, as appears from the minutes which have been preserved of the proceedings of council, formed part of its ordinary administrative labours. Together with these important matters, the time of the council was occupied, as that of every government must be, with an infinite number of trivial cases. And although law-courts had been established for the determination of every species of action or suit, we still find the council exercising judicial functions, not merely for the preservation of the public peace, but for the trial of ordinary offenders. Whenever, in fact, either from defect of legal authority to give judgment, or from want of the necessary power to give effect to their decisions, the law-courts were likely to prove inefficient, the council interposed, by summoning before it defendants and accusers. A tribunal of this description was doubtless useful, in the infancy of regular institutions, for the security of life and property, but its action was arbitrary and capricious. It was regarded with a natural jealousy by Parliament, and from the reign of Edward III. to that of Henry VI., the Commons made vigorous efforts, on repeated occasions, to prevent the council from interfering with matters which belonged to the courts of law, and Dicey, pp. 22, 23; Nicolas, Proc. P. C. vol. i. p. lxxiii., vol. v. pp. xxii. xxxiii., vol. vi. pp. lxi. lxxxi. &c. A.D. 1485. Depend ence of the council on the king. from illegally infringing upon the property and liberties of the people.d The records of the Privy Council during the reigns of Edward IV., Edward V., Richard III., and Henry VII. have not been preserved, so that nothing certain is known of the constitution of the council under those monarchs. With the accession of the Tudor dynasty, the position of the Privy Council towards the monarchy underwent a noticeable change. After the Conquest, the power of the barons had been exerted to curb the despotic will of the sovereign. In later times, the prerogative was exposed to assault from the rising power of the Commons; whilst the nobles, for the most part, loyally supported the throne. The history of the council, from the accession of Henry VII. to the sixteenth year of Charles I., is the history of regal supremacy, potentially exercised through a body of ministers, who had ceased to be a check upon the royal will. This new position of the council towards the crown was mainly brought about by the introduction therein of a number of commoners, who owed their position and influence entirely to the king's favour. The new councillors were doubtless men of mark and ability, but, unless noble by station, they could not be independent of the crown. And where hereditary offices were held by peers, it frequently happened that a deputy was chosen from amongst the commoners, to perform the duties and exert the influence of the post. This gave additional strength to the crown, and was the means of rendering the government more efficient, but it greatly undermined the independence of the council. The change in the composition of the Privy Council did not escape the notice of the common people, by some of whom it was regarded with much dissatisfaction. About twenty-five years after the A.D. 1536, accession of Henry VIII. there was a rising in Yorkshire. The malcontents demanded of the king redress of griev plaints ances. One of their complaints was that the Privy Council Comwas then formed of too many persons of humble birth, against the whilst at the commencement of his majesty's reign it had council. been otherwise. The king told them, in reply, that at his accession there were in the council of the temporality but two worthy calling noble, the one treasurer of England, the other high steward of our house; others, as the Lords Marney and Darcey, but scant wellborn gentlemen, and yet of no great lands until they were promoted by us, and so made knights and lords: the rest were lawyers and priests, save two bishops, which were Canterbury and Winchester.' Henry proceeded to show that there were then many nobles indeed, both of birth and condition,' in the council; but, in conclusion, he informed the rebels, very emphatically, that it appertaineth nothing to any of our subjects to appoint us our council, ne we will take it so at your hands. Wherefore, henceforth, remember better the duties of subjects to your king and sovereign lord, and meddle no more of those nor suchlike things as ye have nothing to do in.' The altered relations between Church and State at this period, consequent upon the Reformation, contributed greatly to increase the authority of the crown. No longer dependent on a foreign potentate, but on the king himself, the dignitaries of the Church imparted a new vigour to the monarchy, when they ceased to be the representatives of a rival power. But, in proportion as the personal authority of the sovereign increased, the influence of the Privy Council was weakened. The records of the time. bear ample testimony to the condition of servility and dependence upon the sovereign to which the council at this epoch had been gradually reduced." Meanwhile, however, the power of the council as an administrative body was in nowise diminished. On the contrary, this was emphatically the age of 'government f Sir H. Nicolas, Proc. P. C. vol. vii. pp. iii., iv. Government by councils. 6 by councils.' Unconstitutional and arbitrary as many of the ordinances of council in the fifteenth century now appear, they almost seem mild when compared with many of those of the Privy Council of Henry VIII. Combining much of the legal authority with the civil and political, it exerted a despotic control over the freedom and property of every man in the realm, without regard to rank or station. Its vigilance was as unremitting as its resentment was fatal; and its proceedings cannot be read without astonishment, that the liberties and constitutional rights of Englishmen should ever have recovered from the state of subjugation in which they were then held by the crown.' h Chiefly concerning itself in securing the internal tranquillity of the kingdom, and in detecting and punishing treason or sedition, the Privy Council also directed its attention to nearly everything connected with the conduct of individuals towards each other, and in relation to the government.' It interposed in matters of private concern, making itself the arbitrator of quarrels between private individuals-thereby encroaching upon the province of the established courts of law. It likewise interfered in ecclesiastical affairs, when its proceedings were often of the most despotic character. In all matters brought before it the council exercised a very summary jurisdiction, usually punishing offenders by committing them to the Tower, by fine, or imprisonment, or both. Reviewing the proceedings of the Privy Council during this period, Sir Harris Nicolas is of opinion, that the arbitrary and unconstitutional powers which the government then exercised, arose less from the personal character of the reigning monarch, congenial as despotism was to his feelings, than from a gradual encroachment on the liberties of the people, and a corresponding extension of the prerogatives of the crown, during the latter part of the fifteenth, and continued until the middle of the sixteenth Sir H. Nicholas, Proc. P. C. vol. vii. p. xxiv. |