signed by such of the Privy Council as shall advise and consent to the same."1 The system of corporate responsibility was first formally recognized in 1693; but there is no instance of the dismissal or resignation of a whole ministry, and its replacement by another, till the reign of George I.; and the change which then took place was due to the personal objection of that sovereign to the ministers of his predecessor rather than to any difference in their public policy. Even when Walpole resigned, in consequence of a vote of want of confidence being carried against him in the House, his colleagues still continued to hold office under his successor. The first instance of a simultaneous change of a whole cabinet on political grounds was that of the Rockingham ministry in 1782; and even in this instance Lord Chancellor Thurlow did not go out with his colleagues. It thus appears that nearly a century elapsed before the political unity of ministers could be said to be established. Up till this period, and for some time subsequently, there were administrators of the government, but no cabinet, no ministry. Towns

hend, for instance, and others, used to set their colleagues at defiance. The government was carried on by departments, but the ministers at the head of these departments were held to be less responsible to 1 12 & 13 William III. c. 2.

Parliament than to the sovereign. The king was in fact the head of the ministry. He exercised the same influence over his ministers as the premier now does over his colleagues. He appointed or dismissed them at pleasure, and it was from him that they took their policy. When the system was changed, the general control of the departments was transferred, not to Parliament, as it ought to have been, but to the premier. When the famous coalition ministry was formed in 1783, Mr. Fox, at a private meeting which took place between his new allies, objected to the king acting as his own minister, to which Lord North replied: "If you mean there should not be government by departments, I agree with you; I think it a very bad system. There should be one man, or a cabinet, to govern the whole, and direct every measure." Lord North's suggestion has been acted upon ever since. But the modern practice of leaving it to the cabinet to initiate and carry through Parliament all important and public measures was not established for a long time afterwards. In 1782, for example, Mr. Burke carried his Bill for Economical Reform, a measure which no government at the present day would leave to a private member; in 1819 Mr. Peel, when a private member, carried his Currency Bill; and in 1830 Lord Brougham, in his

1 Russell's Correspondence of Fox, vol. ii. p. 38.

private capacity, introduced his measure for the establishment of Local Courts of Justice without consulting with his colleagues in the government.

The position which the cabinet holds in the Parliamentary system of the present day is thus laid down by Earl Grey: "It is the distinguishing feature of parliamentary government that it requires the powers belonging to the Crown to be exercised through ministers, who are held responsible for the manner in which they are used, who are expected to be members of the two Houses of Parliament, the proceedings of which they must be able generally to guide, and who are considered entitled to hold their offices while they possess the confidence of Parliament, and more especially of the House of Commons." 1 The doctrine of the unity of the cabinet and of its internal relations, is thus stated and explained by another high authority:-"The nicest of all the adjustments involved in the working of the British government," says Mr. Gladstone, "is that which determines, without formally defining the internal relations of the cabinet. On the one hand, while each minister is an adviser of the Crown, the cabinet is a unity, and none of its members can advise as an individual without, or in opposition actual or presumed to his colleagues. On the other hand, the

1 Parl. Gov., p. 4.

1

business of the State is a hundred times too great in volume to allow the actual passing of the whole under the review of the collective ministry. It is therefore a prime office of discretion for each minister to settle what are the departmental acts in which he can presume on the concurrence of his colleagues, and in what more delicate, or weighty, or peculiar cases he must positively ascertain it." Thus any action, departmental or legislative, taken by any minister with the consent of his colleagues, is regarded not as the action of the individual minister, but of the cabinet or of ministers collectively. Each minister is supposed to be directly responsible to Parliament for his own ministerial acts so long as he proceeds on his own authority; but if he consults his colleagues beforehand and acts with their consent they share his responsibility, and in that case they would be jointly responsible for his acts. This joint consultation and responsibility is what is called Responsible Government.

In all this, be it observed, no account is taken of Parliament in the first instance. The cabinet consult, act, and incur responsibility, and then ask the sanction of Parliament for what they have done. If the action of the cabinet is approved of, they hold their places; if not, they must resign. Parliament is Gleanings, vol. i. p. 242.

1

thus placed in an awkward dilemma: it cannot express disapproval of the action of the government without bringing about their downfall; and it cannot pass over their offence without condoning it. There is no third course open for it; Parliament has no option but to accept the cabinet and its policy together, or reject both. If Parliament were made. the judge in the first instance, the arrangement would be more in accordance with the theory of parliamentary government, and the House would be more likely to arrive at a sound decision on the merits of the case submitted to it. On the other hand, if the cabinet decides first, and afterwards asks Parliament to confirm its decision, it is not in the least probable that ministers will supply any information that might lead Parliament to condemn their own conduct. Besides, the fact of ministers having committed themselves to an issue, the question before the House immediately becomes a party one, is no longer discussed on its merits, but is overshadowed by the, from a party point of view, more important question of the existence of the government. Of course, corporate responsibility is an immense advantage to ministers. A minister with a weak case is then supported by the whole cabinet, and the cabinet in turn are defended by their whole party. Individual responsibility, on the other hand, is far more favourable