power in the state, and rose in ability and influence as well as in actual power above the House of Lords.* And it was Walpole, as we have seen, who set the example of quitting his office, while he still retained the undiminished affection of his King, for the avowed reason that he had ceased to possess the confidence of the House of Commons. Even in minor points we may trace during this period the commencement of many modern usages. It is from that time that the First Lord of the Treasury has been regarded as the head of the ministry. It is from that time that the practice of asking questions of ministers in open Parliament regarding public affairs has prevailed. It is from that time that the courtly Lords and the faithful Commons began to echo in their replies the sentiments of the Royal speech with which the session of Parliament is opened.§ And it was in the case of Walpole that the last attempt was made to proceed by impeachment against a minister on the grounds not of malversation in office, but of his general policy. Since the failure of that vindictive attempt, political impeachments have been unknown.

If, again, it were required to indicate the period at which our modern system of ministries may be regarded as permanently and completely established, it seems to me that we must look to Lord Grenville's administration in 1806. The quarter of a century that had intervened since Lord Rockingham's second ministry, had done much to confirm the principles of Constitutional Government. But although Mr. Pitt well understood and carried out constitutional principles, his position during his long administration more closely resembled that of Walpole than that of any modern

* See Buckle's Hist. of Civ., i. 409.

+ Earl Stanhope's Hist. of Eng., iii. 158; Macaulay, ii. 255.

‡ Lord Campbell's Chancellors, iv. 206.

§ lb., 622.

premier. His great ability, his popularity, and above all the appreciation of his services by the King, overshadowed the remainder of the Cabinet. Even on questions of vital importance he did not take the opinion of his colleagues. Thus the resolution to proceed with the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, a measure which led to Mr. Pitt's resignation, was adopted without any communication on the subject with the Lord Chancellor. Such an authority was exceptional, and could scarcely exist at the present day. If we must have a precise date, we can select none so close as that of the "ministry of all the talents." That ministry was formed on the express understanding that the personal antipathies of the King were to give way to the exigencies of the public service. It was then established that the army, which had always been regarded, and has even since been by eminent authorities regarded, as in a special manner pertaining to the Crown, should cease to be subject to the direct control of the King through the Commander-inChief. Distinct stipulations were made at the formation of that ministry to ensure on certain specified questions uniformity of ministerial action. In connection, too, with one of its appointments, that of the Chief Justice to a seat in the Cabinet, there was a remarkable debate in both Houses, in which the nature of the Cabinet was largely discussed, and which is said, although perhaps too strongly, to have affirmed the doctrine that the Cabinet is not a body recognized by the Constitution, and that the responsibility of each minister for the acts of his colleagues is only a moral and not a legal responsibility.

The result, then, of our inquiries may thus be stated.

* See Massey's Hist. of Eng., iv. 505, 545; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iii. 242.

+ Sir G. C. Lewis's Administrations of Great Britain, 287.

+ Ib., 290.

About the period of the Restoration there may be distinguished the development of a special organ for the exercise of the political functions of the Privy Council. During the reign of William the Third this committee of council for matters of state was usually selected with reference to the X

influence of its members in both Houses of Parliament. But prior to the accession of the House of Brunswick there was no system of concerted action and no mutual responsibility between the servants of the Crown; there was no means of determining the policy of the Crown by presenting the alternative of a general resignation, and there was no ready means of changing the ministry in accordance with the views of Parliament. Under Sir Robert Walpole the modern system, in most at least of its features, was established. It was to a great extent discontinued under his successors; but was revived at various intervals and with varying success during the reign of George the Third. Under his two sons, and still more completely in the earlier part of Her Majesty's reign, the principles and the practice of what is now called Parliamentary Government were firmly established. The policy of the Crown has since that time been determined on the whole by the advice of its ministers; and the ministry is changed at the time of the changes of feeling in public opinion, and in conformity with those changes.

230

CHAPTER IX.

THE RELATION OF MINISTERS TO PARLIAMENT.

when impeded

§ I. Although it be at the risk not only of stating but of reiterating a truism, I must again observe that the great Ministers re- officers of state usually known as ministers are sign only the servants of the Crown. The first duty of in their duty. such a minister is to protect and maintain the interests of his Sovereign. On some occasions he will best promote that interest by retiring from the Royal service. He may feel bound to decline to assist in a policy which he disapproves; or he may seek by a sacrifice of himself to silence those envious tongues that might else assail his master. But there are other occasions on which an equal devotion is shown by his retention of office. A servant of the Crown must control the impulses of wounded self-love and offended dignity. He must not hastily abandon the duty he has undertaken because his counsels may not always be acceptable to Royalty, or because in Parliament his projects of law sometimes miscarry, or because out of doors some senseless cry is raised against him. The vassal was bound to aid his lord as well by his counsel as by attendance in his courts and service in the field. The

same obligation has descended to us. The law imposes upon every man the duty of responding to his Sovereign's demand for advice and assistance: and the loyalty and

devotion which the tie of fealty once engendered still finds a response in the hearts of British statesmen. The error, indeed, has hitherto been that from a chivalrous though erring devotion our statesmen have sometimes lent themselves to support, contrary to their better judgment, the personal wishes of the King. So Lord Waldegrave was willing in a great emergency to endeavour to carry on the Government of George the Second. So Lord North in an evil hour submitted himself to the will of George the Third, and for twelve disastrous years bore the obloquy of a policy which he condemned. Nor does history present a more striking picture than the courageous loyalty of the Duke of Wellington, prepared to undertake as often as he was required the government of the country with the same prompt obedience as he would have taken the command of a brigade, and ready, without any question of its prudence or any regard to the consequences to himself, alike to assume office or to leave it at the word of command.

A better appreciation of constitutional principles has to a great extent taken away the occasion for such appeals and the necessity for such sacrifices. It is now necessary rather to enforce the claims of the Crown than to insist upon the need of controlling it. In our days of political combinations and ministerial crises, men are too ready to forget their duty to their Sovereign and their obligations to the public. In the Colonies, if not in England, office is sometimes heedlessly accepted, and as heedlessly abandoned. But it was urged by Sir Robert Peel that, "when a public man at a crisis of great importance undertakes the public trust of administering the affairs of this country, he incurs an obligation to persevere in the administration of these affairs as long as it is possible for him to do so consistently with

* Speeches, iii. 116.

*