CHAPTER VI THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE CABINET REFERENCES: Todd's Parliamentary Government in England, i. 253290, and ii. 1-24; Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution, ii. 118-136; Bagehot's English Constitution, 69-100; Courtney's Working Constitution of the United Kingdom, 123-135; Ewald's Crown and its Advisers, Lecture on Ministers, Syme's Representative Government in England, 61-94 and 130-158. Τ IT will be noted from what has been said that the Cabinet consists of members of Parliament; that its members belong to the party dominant in the House of Commons and hence agree in political views; that they settle upon a definite policy before going before Parliament; that they resign when they lose the confidence of the majority in the Commons; and that they are dominated by a First or Prime Minister. These fundamental principles of the modern Cabinet were slow in being established, and a glance at their development may facilitate our investigation. Members of Parliament. Before the rise of parliamentary government in England, and while the King had real and practical authority in the affairs of state, there was a decided objection on the part of the mem- the Cabinet in bers of the House of Commons to permitting those who held office under the Crown to hold seats in that chamber. There was a feeling, not without foundation, that such officials might degenerate into mere tools of the King. Attempts were made from time to time to exclude such "place-men from the popular branch of the legislature. Finally in the Act of Settlement (1700-1701) it was provided 'That no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons." This clause, if enforced, would, of course, prevent the Cabinet from assuming its present form. It was repealed, however, before it came into operation, and no mischief was done. The clause. was inserted with the best of intentions, and there was reason for it at the time of its enactment; but after the power of the King became merely nominal, there was no valid reason for its retention. In fact, there were weighty reasons why some officers of the Crown, Cabinet members at any rate, should have seats in the House of Commons and thus be in a position to explain and to defend the acts of the Government. Such members could no longer be tools of the King, since after the rise of parliamentary government, the Crown ceased to have any effective control over legislation. The repeal of the clause which was intended to prevent the officers of the Crown from sitting in the House of Commons was accompanied by an Act passed in 1707, whereby a member of the Lower House, upon assuming a place in the Cabinet, vacated his seat, but was allowed to present himself to his constituents for re-election. This arrangement prevails at the present time. Since the peers have always been looked upon as the hereditary advisers of the Crown, there could be no logical objection to the presence of officers of the Crown in the House of Lords, and members of the Cabinet have always had seats in that chamber without objection. At present Cabinet members are not only allowed but expected to have seats in Parliament. The exceptions to this rule in recent years have not been important. Mr. Gladstone was appointed Secretary of State for the Colonies in Sir Robert Peel's Cabinet, and was defeated when standing for re-election to the House of Commons. He continued, however, to serve in the Cabinet without a seat in Parliament, until the resignation of the Ministry in 1846, six months after his appointment. This is an exceptional case and was commented upon as such in the Commons at the time. In the early days of parliamentary government it seemed best, or at least expedient, to have the Cabinet composed of men of opposing political Unanimity. views. The early Cabinets of William III. were constituted in this way, but the evil results of the political discord thus engendered were not long in displaying themselves, and the King came to the conclusion that a Cabinet composed entirely of Whigs would be more aggressive and in every way more satisfactory. He made changes gradually until his object was attained, and the experience of two centuries testifies to the wisdom of the innovation. However, the plan once introduced was not consistently adhered to. In some of the subsequent Cabinets of William, as well as in those of Queen Anne, we find men of opposite political beliefs. The same state of affairs continued in the reigns of George I. and II., except when the masterful spirit of Robert Walpole |