Ministerial responsibility. A select council. 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.' The forms of the Constitution, which required that the king should always communicate with his ministers, 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.h The formal introduction of this important principle into our constitutional system was to be the work of another generation. The practice of consulting a few confidential advisers, in preference to, and instead of, the whole Privy Council, was doubtless resorted to by the sovereigns of England from a very early period. Lord Bacon, writing in the reign of James I., upon the use of councillors to kings, 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 co-operation, or should be chosen by the sovereign as his most intimate f Forster, Grand Remonst. pp. 10, 27, 47, 51. Hatsell, Precedents, vol. iv. p. 69, &c. Nicolas, Proc. P. C. vol. i. p. xxxiv.; Dicey, pp. 18, 69. And see ante, pp. 10, 29. See Nicolas, Proc. P. C. vol. vii. p. xiv. and confidential advisers. These statesmen came 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.1 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 '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 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 249. Hallam, Const. Hist. vol. iii. p. J Clar. Reb. book ii. p. 226 (edit. 1819). First men tion of a cabinet. Unpopularity of cabinets. Cromwell. 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.'1 The introduction of this method of government by means of a Cabinet was exceedingly distasteful to the 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 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 twentyone members, nor be less than thirteen. But public affairs Clar. Reb. book iii. 1 Clar. Autobiog. vol. i. p. 85. pp. 272, 273. Clar. Hist. Rebellion, book iv. p. 537. And see book vii. 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. tion of the 1660. Immediately upon the restoration of monarchy, in Restora1660, 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 many 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 unsafe and inefficient instrument for the direction of public affairs. Accordingly, at the suggestion of Hyde, the Lord Chancellor, and virtual head of the administration, a plan was devised for the subdivision of the Privy Council into separate committees, to each of which should be assigned a special class of subjects."" This was but the carrying out of a reform already provided for by the regulations of 1553,° under which we find, in the reign of James I., a committee of the council appointed for war, that included several of the king's mm sent, Dod's Peerage, &c. 1868, p. 795. 1620. Charles II. principal ministers; and another committee for foreign affairs. It was now proposed that there should be a committee for foreign affairs, a committee for admiralty, naval, and military affairs; a committee for petitions of complaint and grievance; and a committee for trade and foreign plantations. Furthermore, that if anything extraordinary happens which requires advice, whether in matters relating to the treasury, or of any other mixed nature, other than is afore determined, his majesty's meaning and intention is, that particular committees be in such cases appointed for them as hath been heretofore accustomed; such committees to make their report in writing, to be offered to his majesty at the next council day following. If any debate arise, the youngest councillor to begin, and not to speak a second time.'P It is doubtful whether all these committees were actually organised at this time. But the so-called committee for foreign affairs,'-which consisted of the Lord Chancellor and five others, mostly his intimate friends and adherents, took the lead and became in reality a Cabinet Council, to whom alone the king entrusted the secrets of his policy, and wherein was discussed, invariably in the presence of the king, all the most important affairs of state, both foreign and domestic, before they were submitted to a general meeting of the Privy Council. This confidential committee virtually superseded the rest of the Council, who were only consulted on formal occasions. In connection with the formation of this Cabinet, or Cabal," as it was then termed, the king greatly increased the number of the whole Council; and thus P Cox, Eng. Govt. p. 648. This designation has been erroneously supposed to have been derived from the initial letters of the members composing the Cabal, in the year 1670 (see Haydn, Book of Dignities, p. 90). But this, in point of fact, was a mere coincidence; as the same term was applied to a former minis try, in 1665. It is a derivation from the Hebrew, originally signifying something secret or mysterious, but gradually extended to include the idea of conspiracy and intrigue. See Pepys' Diary, edit. 1854, vol. iii. p. 328, n.; Campbell's Chancellors, vol. iii. p. 191, n.; Notes and Queries, vol. v. p. 520. |