side the Cabinet or from men within it who were disloyal to corporate Cabinet responsibility, he was looked upon by leading statesmen in both political parties as a violator of the Constitution. The secret Cabinet of Walpole with its sense of corporate responsibility had won, or was winning, complete political or constitutional recognition, while all other advisers of the Monarch were condemned as unauthorized, injurious, and unconstitutional.

The dismissal of the Whig Ministry and the formation of a Tory government by royal dictation gave rise to an important debate in the House of Commons. The debate was upon a resolution introduced by Mr. Brand "that it is contrary to the first duties of the confidential servants of the Crown to restrain themselves by any pledge, expressed or implied, from offering to the King any advice which the course of circumstances may render necessary for the welfare and security of the empire." This was of the nature of a direct censure upon the conduct of the King. A debate at such a time over such a question could not be other than edifying. It was old familiar ground that the King cannot be punished, that whatever a king does he must do through a minister, and that the minister must assume the responsibility and bear the punishment for any wrong-doing. It appeared that the King had driven his Ministers from office. In this act he must have had advice. Mr. Percival, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the new Ministry, denied that the King had conferred with any secret advisers before he had dismissed his former Ministers. this was true, the King had done a thing which, according to the theory of English law, was impossible. In any case, if he had acted upon advice, it was from a secret, unauthorized source which tended to the subversion of the government. Members of the Privy Council who formed the Cabinet were regarded as the authorized

If

advisers of the King. It was urged that the Privy Councillors are bound to advise the King on all matters pertaining to the welfare of the State. If a Privy Councillor should pledge himself to refrain from advising the King on any matter that might become of interest to the State, he would thereby violate his oath as a Privy Councillor. Some of the speakers went so far as to state that if the Ministers should make such a pledge as the King demanded, they would be guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour.

There was one item in the Cabinet minute which was severely criticised. That was the intimation on the part of the Cabinet of an intention to support a measure which might come before Parliament by petition, but which, through deference to the King's wishes, the Cabinet had itself withdrawn from Parliament. This, it was claimed, would have the effect of placing the King and his Ministers in open conflict before Parliament, and it was held that the attitude of the Ministers was unconstitutional. The King's Ministers ought not to place the King in a position in which, through his chosen advisers, the Cabinet, he should in Parliament seem to favour a measure, and then, through the advice of the same Ministers, should exercise the veto against the same

measure.

This point in the debate throws much light upon the process of eliminating the formal veto power from the prerogatives of the Crown. The elimination of the veto was involved in the working out of the doctrine that the King must perform all his official acts through his Ministers, together with the now recognized theory of united Cabinet responsibility. The Monarch must not employ secret or unauthorized agents. He must act through those members of the Privy Council who constitute the Cabinet. These being the sole advisers of the King, Parliament

and the nation have no difficulty in fixing the responsibility for his acts. According to this theory the King, through the Cabinet, recommends legislation, and, having thus signified approval, he gives his final sanction to the measures adopted as a matter of course. According to this theory the Cabinet should direct and control the action of the two Houses. Whatever measure the Cabinet promotes or permits is assumed to be likewise promoted or permitted by the King; because, according to the forms of law, the Cabinet is simply the King's advisers. For the King to refuse to sign a bill after it had passed the two Houses would be to refuse to give effect to a measure which, through his Ministers, he had already recommended or approved. The debate over the minute of the Whig Cabinet showed plainly that the logic of the modern Constitution had become clearer. It showed likewise that neither the King nor the Cabinet was in the habit of acting in strict accord with the theory of the Constitution as it then existed.

At the end of the debate in the two Houses over the conflict between the King and his Ministers, George dissolved Parliament, and sought at the hands of the voters a vindication of his position. He obtained a triumphant victory, and again found himself in harmony with a Tory Ministry. This triumph was won by an appeal to the old anti-Catholic prejudice which had been available for such purposes ever since the reign of Elizabeth. It is nevertheless true that the ultimate effect of such a contest was in the direction of a transfer of power from the King to the Cabinet.

In 1810 George III. became permanently insane; his reign may, therefore, be said to end at this time. His rule had already been longer by four years than the time covered by the reigns of the first two Georges. Those reigns were characterized by the dominance of royal pre

rogative exercised not by the King, but by a secret Cabinet; whereas that of George III. was characterized by the continuance of royal prerogative exercised by the King, often in direct conflict with the wishes of his Ministers. Yet before the stubborn will of George III. ceased to dominate English politics, the controversy had arisen which was to result in the transfer of the royal power, first to the Cabinet, and finally to the voting constituency of the nation.

CHAPTER XLI

THE

THE CABINET UNDER GEORGE IV.

HE Prince of Wales was made regent in 1811. As it had been understood that the Prince was a Whig, it was generally expected that the Whigs would be called into office. It seemed at this time to be a settled principle of the Constitution that a Ministry whose politics differed from those of the Monarch could not remain in office. For fifty years George III. had ruled through Tory ministers whom he approved, or through unauthorized "King's friends." The Regent began his rule by consulting with the leaders of the Whigs. He became incensed at Earl Grey, and did not like the haughty bearing of other Whig leaders. In anticipation of the coming Whig rule a vote was carried in the Commons favouring a change of ministers. Certain Whigs were invited to join the Tory Ministry, but this they refused to do. Whereupon the Regent determined to continue the Tory Ministry, and the pliable House of Commons was reconciled. Lord Liverpool was made Prime Minister in 1812, and continued in the office till his death in 1827, when he was followed by another Tory Premier. There was thus an uninterrupted Tory Ministry throughout the regency and kingship of George IV.

It is interesting to observe that one of the questions which led to the rejection of the Whigs by the Regent was a dispute about the places in the royal household.