Parliament censuring in any matter the conduct of the "responsible advisers of the crown" is their retirement from office; when they take up their seats on the opposition side of the House, bent upon thwarting and damaging in every way the policy of the Ministers who have superceded them, and whom they hope, by a fortunate party vote, one day to displace.

In connection with this anomalous and unsatisfactory state of affairs, it may be useful to inquire a little more closely what a "responsible Ministry," as at present constituted, really is; and how far it fills the position of the consultative body which in ancient times supported and guided the crown with its advice. Under the ancient constitution of the country a body known as the Privy Council, and composed of the most eminent and respectable men of the day, including the chief officers of state, was recognized as the adviser of the Sovereign in all matters of state, domestic and foreign; and the members of that body were responsible for their acts to Parliament. It was under Charles I. that the legitimate functions of this important Council began to fall into desuetude, when the king resorted to the counsel of his most confidential and devoted friends, meeting in private in his cabinet; whence the name "Cabinet," which to this day is the corporate denomination of the men who style themselves the "responsible advisers of the crown." The Privy Council still exists in name, but is never called together except at certain state ceremonials, when they claim no deliberative voice, and simply register

ordinances already agreed upon by the "Cabinet." As a matter of practice every person who is appointed one of the Ministers of the Crown, included in the Cabinet, is created a Privy Councillor on taking office; but as a body the Cabinet is an institution unknown to the law of the country, and is virtually absolved from responsibility. "Unless," writes Mr. Chisholme Anstey, in his 'History of the Laws and Constitution of England,' "some direct proof be laid of a personal participation in giving advice, no Cabinet Minister can be holden to answer for the most unlawful measures of the Cabinet; that is to say, unless by a signature, or the setting of a seal, the responsibility of the particular person for the particular measure can be proved. But how to prove it? With the Privy Council, the Book of the Council is lost. The Cabinet, not being a Council of the State known to the law, the journals of its proceedings, if it have any journals, are of no official character, and there is nowhere imposed an obligation for the safe custody or production of such." It has been remarked by another able writer, that mere expulsion from office, by a vote of Parliament, which has come to be considered a sufficient punishment for any crime which a Minister can be guilty of, does not expose, but abundantly serves to cloak and hide the offence ; and that their opponents, who supplant them in their places by virtue of a parliamentary majority for a season, show no inclination to press against them for their misconduct-for the simple reason that there is no knowing how soon it may be again their turn to fall into a minority.

What still further aggravates the evils of "Cabinet" government, is the circumstance that in actual practice, the whole Cabinet does not, as a rule, confer upon the course of action to be adopted in the name of the crown; each particular Minister being left very generally to manage the details of his own. department. From the evidence of the Duke of Newcastle, before the Sebastopol Committee, it would appear that in the momentous business of our Foreign policy, everything is pretty well left to the Foreign Secretary, who puts himself occasionally in communication with the Prime Minister. "It is the ordinary practice," he further states, "not to hold any council from the prorogation of Parliament till some time in October," and it appears that in the critical period, more particularly referred to by the Committee, no Cabinet Council had been held between August and the middle of December, and that during all the interval no steps were taken to inform the members of the Cabinet who happened to be out of town, of important despatches received. Another evil in the practice under the present system, is the mode of communication which it appears is very generally adopted between the Foreign Secretary and the representatives of Foreign Courts. The voluminous correspondence recently published in reference to the Alabama misunderstanding, represents Lord Granville and General Schenck, continually exchanging calls, and discussing and agreeing to all sorts of "understandings" and points of detail verbally, and writing to one another notes marked "private," the contents of

A

which, though relating to public business, the recipient considers himself bound not to reveal. remarkable instance of the objectionable practice last-mentioned, occurred in the course of a recent debate, when Lord Granville refused some informations which the House of Lords were most desirous to have as to the nature and progress of certain arrangements, because they were contained in "private" letters from General Schenck. Lord Clarendon, also, in his evidence before the Committee on the Diplomatic Service, acknowledged to the same objectionable practice.

It was by Lord Palmerston, that the absolute. extinction of the exercise of the functions of Par liament in matters of peace, war, and alliances, by the assertion of the assumed prerogative of the crown, was finally accomplished; and it is worthy of remark that this very same Minister whilst thus putting forward the prerogative of the crown as against the authority of Parliament, himself paid very little or no regard to the will or opinion of the crown.

Whilst protesting against the existence of any prerogative or right in the crown of such a nature as to warrant the making of war or the conclusion of peace, without the consent of Parliament, we must not be understood to deny that the crown is the proper organ of the community in its relations with other communities. It is only through the crown that the nation can act in these relations; but the crown is bound to act according to the Law and the Constitution, and according to

the Law and Constitution the Crown can act only through the Privy Council. We do not admit that the crown even acting according to law through the Privy Council, is competent to bind the nation. in these matters without the consent of Parliament; -neither can we admit any right on the part of Parliament to divest itself of its functions. The all-controlling function of supply belongs to Parliament, and the practice we are now so familiar with of Parliament continuing to vote supplies at the same time that it is denied all authority on matters of peace, war, and alliance, can only be spoken of as a shameful abandonment by Parliament of its duty. But whilst thus maintaining that Parliament is of necessity, the co-equal of the crown in these matters, we would pay all respect to the legitimate

action of the crown.

The well-known letter of the Queen which was laid before Parliament by Lord John (now Earl) Russell, at the time of Lord Palmerston's dismissal from office by the Queen, establishes the historical fact that the very same Minister who, more than any other, was in the habit of pleading the prerogative of the crown as bar to the exercise of its functions by Parliament, was also in the habit of disregarding the prerogative of the crown himself to the extent, in Lord John Russell's words, of "passing by the crown and putting himself in the place of the crown.' Moreover, the action taken by Lord John Russell in this affair, shows that he, as Prime Minister, had been obliged to fly to the Queen to prevent himself from being equally with herself