Case of the CHAPTER III. THE ORIGIN AND PROGRESS OF PARLIAMENTARY In the endeavour to enforce the principle of ministerial responsibility for all acts of government, it speedily became apparent that some constitutional provision was necessary to require that the advisers of the crown, through whose agency all affairs of state are conducted, should be publicly known-in order that they might be held accountable to Parliament for the advice they had given to the sovereign, and for the consequences of acts which had been brought about through their own instrumentality. This was strikingly exemplified in the case of the Partition Treaties, which occurred in 1698. The House of Commons were of opinion that these treaties were highly injurious to the public interests, and it was proposed to impeach Lord Somers, who, as Chancellor, had affixed to them the great seal. Somers, in his defence, alleged that he had opposed the treaties, but that he had put the great seal to one of them by the king's command, considering that he was bound to do so. Dissatisfied with this explanation, the Commons resolved upon his impeachment. They also determined to impeach the Earl of Portland, Lord Orford, and Lord Halifax, who, as prominent members of the administration, were held responsible for advising this objectionable measure. But it proved that these noblemen had had nothing to do with the matter, and that the treaties had been negotiated by the king himself. Lord Somers was acquitted by the House of Lords, not withstanding the unwarrantable nature of his defence, in trusting for the justification of his conduct to the king's command; an excuse which was entirely at variance with the true principles of responsible government, and which, if recognised as sufficient, would deprive Parliament of all control over the executive administration. Contrast the conduct of Lord Somers in this particular with that of his successor in the chancellorship, Lord Hardwicke, who, on two occasions when required by George II. to put the great seal to conventions concluded by the sovereign himself, positively refused to do so, solely because he deemed the treaties in question to be injurious to the interests of England.a The proceedings against the other members of the ministry were equally unsuccessful, it being impossible to prove that they had been parties to the obnoxious treaty. Foiled in their attempt to bring home to anyone responsibility for this act of arbitrary power, the House of Commons set about the adoption of measures to prevent a repetition of the offence. This they endeavoured to effect by the introduction of a clause into the Act of Settlement which provided, that after the accession of the House of Hanover, all matters relating to the well-governing of this kingdom, which are properly cognisable in the Privy Council by the Responsi laws and customs of this realm, shall be transacted bility of there, and all resolutions taken thereupon shall be Counsigned by such of the Privy Council as shall advise or consent to the same.' This provision was meant to compel the discussion of all state affairs in full Privy Council, and to discriminate between the responsibility of those who promoted and those who opposed each resolution, by requiring all who voted for it to sign their names thereto. It was, however, soon perceived • Harris's Life of Hardwicke, v. 2, 253; Campbell's Chanc. v. 4, pp. 156– pp. 59, 369; v. 3, p. 539. Hallam's Const. Hist. v. 3, p. 158. Privy cillors. Impeach ment of that such a system would cause infinite delay and embarrassment in governing the kingdom; while doubtless it was also obnoxious to the ministry, who were not as yet prepared to assume such a definite responsibility, involving with it prospective anticipations of impeachment and disgrace. Accordingly, in the following reign, before the time when it was to have come into operation, it was formally repealed.* According to modern usage, but one kind of public document is signed by all the members of the Cabinet, as Privy Councillors, and that is, the order for general reprisals which constitutes a declaration of war. Such an order was issued against Russia in 1854, and was signed by all the members of Lord Aberdeen's Cabinet.f Another clause in the Act of Settlement,—which ministers. appears to have been framed in connection with the foregoing, declared that no pardon under the great seal should be pleadable to an impeachment by the Commons. This salutary provision still remains in force, and is calculated to increase the sense of individual responsibility of ministers. It has been interpreted by Blackstone as designed to prevent the royal pardon from being available pending an impeachment, and in bar to its progress; but not to restrain a pardon after the conclusion of the trial." William III. Although the Act of Settlement proved abortive to ensure the direct accountability of the advisers of the crown to Parliament, yet that result was gradually brought about by the course of events, in a way that was quite unforeseen by the politicians and statesmen who effected the Revolution. William III had been summoned to the throne of England by the two Houses of Parliament, in order that he might rule as a constitutional sovereign. The rights Creasy, Eng. Const. p. 332. Parl. Hist. v. 6, p. 474. e 4 & 5 Anne, c. 8. p. 620. H. Reeve, in Ency. Brit. 9th edit. and liberties of the subject, for infringing which King James had forfeited his crown, had been declared by Parliament in a document which was presented to the Prince of Orange upon his assumption of the government. They had afterwards been embodied in the Bill of Rights, as part of the fundamental laws of the kingdom, and the motive and condition of the revolution-settlement. The king, on his own part, was sincere in his resolve and endeavour to discharge his sacred obligations with fidelity. But owing to the natural reserve of his disposition, and his large capacity for administration, he relied much less upon the advice of his ministers than would now be expected of a constitutional king. In fact, according to the testimony of Hallam, William was eminently his own minister, and was better fitted for that office than any of those who served him. In all domestic matters, as a general rule, he was wont to consult his ministers, and to govern through their instrumentality; but he still preserved in his own hands the supreme control. h In 1701, when the reign of William III. was drawing to a close, it was made the subject of complaint by Lord Sunderland, in a letter of advice addressed to Lord Somers, that his majesty evinced too much neglect and distrust of his cabinet; the remonstrance was summed up in these significant words: 'It would be much for the king's service if he brought his affairs to be debated at that council.'j Questions of war and diplomacy, however, the king reserved to himself; and his advisers, conscious that they were less versed in military and foreign affairs than their royal master, were content to leave with him the command of the army, and to know only what he thought fit to communicate about the instructions which he gave to his own ambassadors, or concerning the conferences which he held with the ambassadors of His first parliamentary administration. k foreign princes. We have seen the consequences of this policy in diplomatic affairs in the matter of the Partition Treaties; but so deep-seated was the conviction that military affairs were a branch of the prerogative that belonged exclusively to the king himself, that it was not until the year 1806 that it was fully conceded that the management of the army, in common with all other prerogatives, was subject to the supervision of ministers.1 To William III., however, is due the credit of the formation of the first administration avowedly constructed upon the basis of party, in order that it might carry on the king's government in conformity with the general political views of the majority of the House of Commons. This ministry was composed of statesmen who had seats in one or other of the Houses of Parliament; thereby supplying a defect in the scheme of government, the want of which in the plan propounded in the Act of Settlement was sufficient to account for the failure of that projected reform. The history of this remarkable transaction, which constitutes such a memorable epoch in our political annals, is reserved for another chapter, in which it is proposed to treat, with more detail, of the origin and development of the cabinet council. Suffice it here to state, that during this reign the distinction between the cabinet and the privy council,—and the exclusion of the latter from deliberation upon all affairs of state, except of the most formal description, was fully established, and that the king's ministers in Parliament became the authorised representatives of the crown, for the purpose of introducing, explaining, and defending the measures of government; thereby practically asserting a constitutional principle, which it was reserved for another generation to bring to maturity, that ministers. |