century. This innovation may probably be traced to the usurpation of Richard III., followed by the usurpation of Henry VII.; it being scarcely possible for the liberties of a country to survive two revolutions, or for a successful rebel not to become a tyrant.'* 6 the Crown VIII. From the constitution of the Privy Council under the Power of Tudor sovereigns, it might be supposed that every politi- under cal measure, if it did not originate with the Council, was Henry at any rate deliberated upon by that body. But such was not at all the case. Henry VIII. was in the fullest sense of the word his own minister; and all the most important matters, particularly in relation to foreign policy, proceeded immediately from his own mind, and were conducted upon his own judgment.' The modified form of ministerial responsibility which we have seen was established by command of Henry IV., and which continued to be enforced in subsequent reigns, was set at nought by Henry VIII., as appears from transactions recorded in State Papers of the period: 'As there were some occasions on which he did not even consult his favourite minister, it may be inferred that there were many more on which he acted without the advice of his council." For a time Wolsey was his favourite, and then Cromwell; but after the fall of Cromwell, no one minister bore even the slight resemblance presented by these statesmen to a modern premier. In fact, Henry issued his commands to any of his ministers, without regard to their peculiar duties; but, as no responsibility to the country was incurred, it mattered little whom the king selected to carry his orders into effect. He was himself the centre from which every measure emanated, and his ministers had nothing more to do than to receive his commands and obey them. But all communications between the ministers and the king, relating to the affairs of government, seem, even in that arbitrary period, to have been made. Sir H. Nicolas, Proc. P. C., vol. vii. p. lxvi. 'Ibid. pp. xi., xii. council into com mittees. through a privy councillor; so that the forms of the Constitution were, in this important point at least, strictly ad hered to; and, however forgetful Parliament might have been of its duties, means always existed of fixing the responsibility for the acts of the crown upon those to whom, according to the laws, it entirely and exclusively attaches.'m During the reign of Henry VIII., the greater part of the members of the Privy Council appear to have been in regular attendance upon the king; accompanying him wherever he went, and giving their daily attention to the business of the state. These were usually the great officers of the household, a bishop, and one of the principal secretaries; whilst other functionaries-such as the Lord Chancellor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the other principal secretary, and a few minor officials-remained in London, to dispose of the ordinary and routine affairs of government. Occasionally, however, the whole council assembled together, either for ordinary purposes, or at the special command of the king." By means of rules adopted for its internal improvement, the Privy Council was brought to a high state of efficiency for the discharge of the numerous and imporDivision of tant duties which devolved upon it at this period. In 1553, King Edward VI. drew up a series of regulations for his council, under which the whole body (which then consisted of forty persons) was divided into five commissions, or (as they would now be termed) committees, to each of which was assigned a distinct branch of public business. Upon some of these committees certain persons, mostly judges, were added. They were styled 'ordinary councillors,' and were not consulted on questions of general policy. This practice has been adhered to to the present day. It was also provided, by these new regulations, that every matter should be brought under the m Sir H. Nicolas, Proc. P. C., vol. vii. pp. xiv., XV. royal notice, that if there arise such matters of weight as it shall please the king's majesty to be himself at the debating of, then warning shall be given, whereby the more shall be at the debating of it," and that the secretaries should be the channel of communication between the councillors and their royal master.P The office of secretary, or king's clerk, it may be here King's remarked, was originally held in small estimation. The secretary. secretary possessed no political influence, unless, as sometimes happened, he was a member of the council. At length it became necessary to appoint two secretaries, after which, by almost imperceptible degrees, the dignity of the office was increased. During the reign of Henry VII. persons of weight were selected to fill the post. In the following reign we find the secretaryship held by Cromwell. Henceforth the secretaries take rank with barons, are always members of the council, and by the Act 31 Henry VIII. c. 10, become entitled to this position ex-officio. But it was not until the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth that we find them designated Secretaries of State." By the regulations of 1553, above mentioned, all the business of the Privy Council was transacted through committees, which were variously modelled, as occasion required. The same persons sat on different committees. From this arrangement a body known in history as the Star Star Chamber came into existence, and acquired evil Chamber. fame from its arbitrary and tyrannical proceedings. The Star Chamber was, in effect, the council under another name. It was frequently presided over by the king himself, and even in his absence transacted business with great dignity and solemnity; hence it will be seen that the council had abated none of its ancient pretensions to • From a very early period it would seem to have been the practice for the Council to meet for the ordinary transaction of business without the king being present. But the sovereign was evidently at liberty to attend whenever he thought fit. (Sir H. Nicolas, Proc. P.C. vol. i. pp. xxv., P Dicey, pp. 39-43. Ibid. p. 41. Thomas, Notes on Arrests by councillors. the plenary exercise of judicial power. Besides asserting the right to act in almost every case where a lawcourt had jurisdiction, the king and his councillors avowedly acted 'in cases not examinable in other courts.' The secret tribunal of the Star Chamber continued in operation up to the reign of Charles I., when the struggles of Parliament against the judicial authority of the Council, so long intermitted, were again revived with accumulated vigour, until (by the statute 16 Car. I. c. 10) it was determined that neither his majesty nor his Privy Council have, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, or authority, by English bill, petition, articles, libel, or any other arbitrary way whatsoever, to examine or draw into question, determine or dispose of, the lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods, or chattels of any of the subjects of this kingdom; but that the same ought to be tried and determined in the ordinary courts of justice, and by the ordinary course of the law.' By the same statute, the power that the Council Table hath of late times assumed unto itself, to intermeddle in civil causes and matters only of private interest between party and party,' is declared to be contrary to the law of the land, and the rights and privileges of the subject.' The Star Chamber, with its cognate jurisdictions, was accordingly by this Act swept away, and the most part of those judicial powers which the state policy of former generations had bestowed upon the council, were utterly abolished." During this period of 'government by councils,' the privy councillors, in addition to their potent authority as members of a board of such pre-eminence in the state, assumed the right of arresting their fellow-citizens at their own individual discretion. It may be thought that such an act would have been justified by the use of the king's name. But the councillors claimed the authority Sir H. Nicolas, Proc. P. C. vol. vii. p. xxiv. Dicey, pp. 45-57, which gives a curious and minute account of the doings of the Star Chamber. See also Palgrave, King's Council, pp. 38, 100, 110. as pertaining to themselves, and the judges admitted the validity of their claim, so far at least as commitments by order of the Council Board' as well as by royal command were concerned." The government of Queen Elizabeth was conducted Queen almost exclusively through the medium of her Privy Elizabeth Council, individually or collectively; Parliaments (though regularly convened at intervals of from one to four years) being regarded by her as mere instruments of taxation, to which she abstained from resorting except upon necessity. The practical disuse of Parliaments during the Tudor dynasty naturally led to a larger assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the Privy Council, which retained much of the authority thus unlawfully acquired, even after the recurrence by later sovereigns to the constitutional services of Parliament.t The powerful system so elaborately matured by the Tudor sovereigns expired with them; and the period between the death of Elizabeth and the restoration of the Stuarts may be considered as the time when government by councils' came to an end." But meanwhile, the Parliaments of Elizabeth, unlike their timid predecessors in previous reigns, were remarkably outspoken; and the Commons did not hesitate to tender their advice to the queen, not merely upon affairs of Church and State, but even and her upon the more delicate topics of a royal marriage and the Parlia succession to the throne. True, they were repeatedly commanded not to interfere in any matters touching her majesty's person, estate, or church government, but such as might be propounded to them by the queen herself. But they made good their claims to a higher consideration, by successfully asserting the necessity for redressing various grievances affecting the commonwealth. And so there followed in due course, and as it were by natural See Parry's Parlts. pp. 214-239. Dicey, p. 56. Macqueen, Privy Council, p. 680. Hearn, Govt. of Eng. p. 132. "Dicey, p. 59. ments. |