The development of the Cabinet system, so far as it was developed under the guidance of Walpole, was not in itself a movement in the direction of democracy. Walpole feared and dreaded democracy, as did the other members of the ruling classes. He made use of the terrors of the unrepresented nation to frighten the privileged classes into submission, as did his Tudor prototypes. If Walpole's ideal had been fulfilled, harmony between the privileged classes would have been achieved, and the nation would have been forever shut out from participation in the government. If real harmony could have been reached, and if the nation had been led to submit to the rule of a harmonious aristocracy, then England would have moved in the direction of what we are wont to call Asiatic civilization. On account of the perpetual strife between the ruling classes the people had enjoyed many of the fruits of democracy without its annoyances and responsibilities. Harmony in the ruling classes, with the nation still unrepresented, would have been a greater revolution in the English government than any it has ever experienced. Such a supposition, however, is absurd. It involves the assumption that the English nation might possibly become something else; that they might become. a people such as they had never been, a people able to draw sharp lines of distinction between the rulers and the governed. Nothing is more characteristic of the English than the fact that they have never been capable of drawing sharp lines anywhere.

There was never a time when there were not ample grounds for relentless strife between the rulers and the governed. We may readily believe that the spirit of strife between the people and the government had been fostered and encouraged by the quarrels of the ruling classes among themselves. It may be equally true that the fierceness of class against class and the exigencies of foreign wars have

tended to obscure and delay the inevitable contest of the people against their government for the control of that government. Through the device of the Cabinet, a quarrel of a hundred and fifty years' standing was settled. Walpole's Cabinet did adjust the relations of the Crown to the Parliament, and this prepared the way for the final contest between the people and the government. A state of foreign warfare is not a favourable condition for such domestic strife. Continued wars for seventy-five years after the rule of Walpole delayed and tempered the contest of the people for a share in the government; but they did not prevent the issue from being joined, nor prevent the people from making substantial gains.

2 B

THE

CHAPTER XXXVII

WALPOLE'S SUCCESSORS

HE test of an institution which seems to have its origin largely in the personal qualities of a single statesman comes when the working of it passes into other hands. Walpole had gone into the war against Spain to prolong his power; but notwithstanding this, he was defeated in the election of the Chairmen of Committees in 1742, and a little later an adverse vote on an election petition caused him to resign. If at this time there had been a fully developed modern Cabinet, the other members would have resigned with their chief. This did not take place. Walpole's successor was found in his own Cabinet. Wilmington was nominally the head of the government for a year. Henry Pelham then became Prime Minister and held the position until his death, in 1754. The chief opponents of the Walpole Ministry were disaffected Whigs. Some of these were taken into the new Ministry, and thus the fierce critics of Walpole's government consented to become a part of that formed by his associates.

With the disappearance of Walpole it became more difficult to manage the King. Granville, an ancient enemy of Walpole, was taken into the new Ministry. He quarrelled with the leaders, and was forced by them to resign. Pitt and Chesterfield, who had been conspicuous among Walpole's critics, were kept out of the Pelham Ministry on

account of the personal disfavour of the King. Granville won the favour of the King and used his influence against the Ministry. When, in 1746, the ministers demanded that Pitt and Chesterfield should be admitted into office, the King refused to comply, and the ministers resigned. The King then called upon Granville to form a new Ministry. He undertook the task, but found after three days that with the greater part of the Whig party against him it was impossible. The King then acceded to the demands of the Pelham Ministry, and restored them to power with Pitt and Chesterfield admitted to office.

The constraining of George II. to admit to the Ministry men whom he disliked has some resemblance to the events which induced William III. to accept a Tory Ministry, and to those which induced Anne to accept a Whig Ministry, but the resemblance is altogether superficial. In the time of William and Anne the monarchs were viewed as the responsible heads of the administration; but after the long rule of Walpole decided progress was apparent in the direction of the view that the Prime Minister and his supporters were responsible for the administration. It was the stress of war that induced William and Anne to accept ministers whom they did not like. George II. was induced to accept such because his ministers had resigned in a body, and at the same time had so controlled the action of Parliament as to prevent the King's friends from forming a government. Here was a group of leading ministers holding secret meetings apart from the King, and at the same time holding such a close relation to Parliament that, so long as they received the cordial support of the two Houses, they could force the King to a choice between having no government at all, and complying with their demands. We see in this an essential feature of the modern Cabinet. There is no earlier instance of such action than that in which the Whig leaders obliged

George II. to dissolve the Granville Ministry and admit Pitt to a place in the Cabinet. The last rising in support of the Stuart claimant for the throne occurred a few months before this ministerial crisis, and was no doubt a strong argument in the mind of the King in favour of submission to the demands made upon him.

The new method of changing ministers avoids the necessity of impeachment. Formerly, obnoxious ministers were disposed of by bills of attainder or by impeachments. Impeachments accompanied the changes of ministers in the time of Charles II., as also under both William III. and Anne. During all this time a criticism upon the Ministry was, in a certain sense, a reflection upon the monarch. But when George I. ceased to attend Cabinet meetings, and when there was a Prime Minister who stood ready to bear the full force of hostile criticism, the government could be criticised without special reflection upon the King. The arena for hostile criticism was chiefly in the House of Commons, where the necessary supplies were voted. Walpole set the example of always controlling that House. And as soon as that became impossible he vacated his position in favour of another Premier who could control it. When Walpole resigned, a committee of investigation was appointed by the House of Commons, but there was no impeachment. Under the new order of governmental responsibility it seemed quite sufficient that a minister should be compelled to bear the burdens of government in the face of full and free criticism. And when he ceased to be able to control the action of the two Houses, it seemed punishment enough that he should be forced to resign. Under the new methods, the ministers and the two Houses became more thoroughly identified. Those men become chief ministers who can control the Houses. A change of ministers is effected through political influence and through an indirect action of the Parlia