to your share, without making a precedent for enlarging the Cabinet which Her Majesty had much rather confine than extend." This shows also that the Cabinet was becoming more closely associated with the Government departments.

The beginning of the change is noticeable in a curious debate, in 1711, on a motion of censure on the Queen's Ministers for the mode in which they had carried on the war. "For several years past," said Lord Rochester, “they had been told the Queen was to answer for everything; but he hoped that time was over; that according to the fundamental constitution of this kingdom Ministers are accountable for all."2 It became the custom also for Ministers to meet together at stipulated intervals to hold conference upon State affairs. Dean Swift, writing in his Memoirs relating to the Change in Queen Anne's Ministry, says: “It was Mr. Harley's custom, every Saturday, that four or five of his most intimate friends among those he had taken in upon the great change made at Court, should dine at his house, and after about two months' acquaintance I had the honour always to be one of the number. This company at first consisted only of the Lord Keeper Harcourt, the Earl Rivers, the Earl of Peterborough, Mr. Secretary St. John and myself; and here after dinner they used to discourse and settle matters of great importance." The Cabinet was not looked upon either as a necessary part of our Constitution or as a body which was to meet regularly to discuss and settle the important matters of the realm.

It will be remembered that so far it had been always the custom of the Sovereign to preside at the formal, though irregular, meetings of the Cabinet.

George I, unable either to express himself in the English tongue or to understand those who possessed that mode

1 Bolingbroke, Letters, III, 27.

2 Parliamentary History, VI, 972.

See also Campbell, Lives of the Chancellors, Vol. IV, p. 450.

of expression, remained absent from the meetings of the Cabinet and "was content with being told the result in bad Latin-the only means of communication with his ministers."1 This possesses a peculiar and far-reaching significance. It meant that the King was compelled to rely upon the counsel of his chief Ministers. However unimportant may be considered the absence of the King from the Cabinet meetings, it becomes readily apparent that this placed in the hands of the Executive a greater power and a more extensive authority than that to which its members hitherto had been accustomed. The personal opinions and ideas of Charles, of William and of Anne, must have exercised a potent influence in the deliberations of the Cabinet and the conclusions reached. The absence of George I from the Cabinet originated a practice which has been followed. George II also absented himself from the meetings, and by the end of his reign we may regard the absence of the King from the meetings of his ministers as one of the principles of the Constitution. Mr. Todd, in his great work, The Parliamentary Government of England, mentions three occasions on which the King has been present at a Cabinet meeting since the reign of George I.o As they are, however, merely exceptions, two of the cases being merely formal and considerable doubt existing as to the third, they are mentioned only to show that the record has not passed unobserved.

At this time there existed a strong inducement for the person who had to form a ministry to select members of the same political creed and purpose. It was of vital importance that the Cabinet, before proceeding to carry into effect its policy, should know that it was supported by the suffrages of the dominant party in the Commons.

1 Donne, Vol. I, p. xxiv.

The

2 Vol. II, p. 115. Hardwicke, Life, ii, 231. Hervey, Court of Geo. II, II, 555. Waldegrave Memoirs, 86.

name with which this great change is associated is that of Sir Robert Walpole. It could be truly called

Clarum et venerabile nomen,

Gentibus, et multum nostrae quod proderat urbi.

Throughout those years, pregnant as they were with the influences which might make or mar a nation, the historian may observe springing up and waxing stronger as it grew, that great system of government of the country by Parliament and the Executive. During Walpole's period in office we find the principle of political unity in the Cabinet becoming assured. It would be difficult to over-estimate the progress made during his administration. Exercising, at one time, a power always tempered by discretion and a dexterity in government which eventually made for a proper understanding between the Crown and Parliament, Walpole raised the Executive to a higher and more democratic plane than it had yet known.

To indicate the extent of the influence exercised by Walpole, perhaps it will not be out of place to quote Carlyle. He writes of Walpole, in his Life of Frederick the Great: "For above ten years, for almost twenty years virtually, and through others, he has what they call governed' England; that is to say, has adjusted the conflicting Parliamentary chaos into counterpoise, by what methods he had and allowed England with Walpole atop, to jumble whither it would and could. . . . . This task Walpole did in a sturdy, deep bellied, long headed, John Bull fashion, not unworthy of recognition." 2

Sir Robert Walpole called the Cabinet together as seldom as he conveniently could. His customary proceeding was to invite two or three representatives from the department to which the matter under discussion related, and after discussing with them the subject of dispute, he would decide 1 See Hearn, Government of England, p. 206.

2 Carlyle's Frederick the Great, Vol. III, pp. 373, 374.

UNIV. OF MIGN. LAW LIBRARY.

the course to be followed. We learn from Campbell that during the whole time of Walpole's administration he rarely consulted his colleagues with reference to the general policy of the Government, but usually confined his conferences with them to the consideration of measures concerning their individual departments.1 The bonds between the Executive and the Commons had grown stronger; the Cabinet meetings became no more regular. Although Walpole relied so much upon the Commons for his support, he seldom appointed members of the Commons to positions in the Cabinet. Probably, exercising his masterly discretion, he recognised that an enemy in the Upper House was less to be feared than an enemy in the Lower House. If a member of the Upper House resigned office he was powerless to effect harm, if he were of the Lower House he could exercise all his influence to fan the flame of dissatisfaction and obtain a change of ministry.

A striking proof of the progress already made is afforded by the resignation of Walpole. Upon receiving an adverse vote in the Commons, which of course was so given as to constitute a lack of confidence in him, he resigned without any reference to the Sovereign, but merely through the influence of the dominant party in the Commons. This was the first time that a Prime Minister had resigned solely on account of having lost the support of the Commons majority. Walpole's resignation was not followed by that of his colleagues in the Cabinet. The rule that the whole Cabinet depended for its continued existence upon its recognised head, the Prime Minister, was not yet recognised. We find George II sending a message to Pulteney -who had been commissioned to form a new ministryexpressing a hope that he would not "distress the Government by making too many changes in the midst of a session."

1 Campbell, Lives of the Chancellors, Vol. IV, pp. 607, 608.

The Pelham Administration of 1743-1746 affords us an insight into the revolution which had taken place during the last few years in the Cabinet, but it is impossible to put forward all the definite steps and incidents which have gradually tended to its reformation. It is only by laying stress upon the prominent characteristics that we are able to appreciate the progress made.

In the year 1744 Lord Granville, upon attemping to lead a party against Pelham, and failing to convince his fellow members that his antagonism to Pelham did not arise from self-interest, but from an overwhelming desire to see his country well governed, on being repeatedly outvoted, retired from the Cabinet.1 This is apparently the first instance recorded where a member of the Cabinet, finding that the majority differed from him as to the policy to be pursued, had felt himself called upon to resign. Henceforth the Cabinet, the great controlling force of the country, had to be chosen from the members of the dominant party in the Commons, otherwise disagreement would follow hard upon the process of formation, and resignation of some of its members would inevitably follow. The significance of Granville's action is thus patent. We must remember that, although during the administration of Walpole there were no divisions in the Cabinet, this must not to be taken to mean that it had been decided that political unanimity in the Cabinet was essential. It is evident that the Cabinet remained in a state of unity at that time more by the tactful influence of Walpole than owing to any constitutional change that had taken place.

The new ministry was formed upon "the broad bottom policy, that is, it was a coalition of members of both parties. This was much disliked, as many looked upon it as unconstitutional. During the Grenville ministry, 1763-1765,

2

1 Bedford Correspondence, Vol. I, pp. xxv—xxxv.

2 Mahan's History of England, Vol. III, p. 168.