32 
an attempt were made to attach re- 
sponsibility to all the members of 
the cabinet, for every ministerial 
act, it would be apt to endanger, 
and in most instances to defeat, the 
object of responsibility, for this ob- 
vious reason, that the difficulty of 
producing conviction and punish- 
ment is greater in the one case than 
in the other. © Every minister was 
separately responsible in his own 
department of the government ; but 
no man nor body of men could be 
’ made responsible for the whole acts 
of anadministration. ‘The advisers 
of pernicious measures might be 
punished for their bad advice, but 
the fact of their having given such ad- 
vice, must in the first place be prov- 
ed against them. ‘* The immediate 
actor can always be got at in a way 
. that is very plain, direct and easy, 
compared to that by which you may 
be able to reach his advisers. When 
parliament have tried to get at the 
advisers too, how have they proceed- 
ed? Look at the mode, and that 
mode alone will sustain the argu- 
ment, that the cabinet counsellors 
are not legally known. For in the 
addresses presented on such occa- 
sions it will be found, that parlia- 
ment apply to know by whom any 
measure to which the address al- 
Judes, may have been advised. 
Surely then, such an application 
serves to shew, that the cabinet has 
never been deemed a responsible 
body ; for, if it were, such an appli- 
cation would be quite superfluous. 
But, do not confine your research 
to those addresses; look at tke 
journals throughout. Examine the 
several articles of impeachment un 
record, and you can discover no in- 
stance of any man, or body of men, 
being impeathed as cabmet oounsel- 
2 
* Mo, Fox, 
‘ 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1806. 
lors. ‘Take the end of queen Anne’s 
reign. See the articles of impeach. 
ment exhibited against the earlrof 
Oxford for the conclusion of the 
peace of Utrecht. Lord Boling. 
broke, who was the person princi- 
pally concerned in that transaction, 
being then out of the country and 
beyond the reach of parliament, it 
was eagerly endeavoured to impli- 
cate lord Oxford. In prosecution 
of this object a variety of shifts and 
expedients were resorted to, which 
would have been totally unneces- 
sary had the cabinet council been 
considered as a responsible body. 
No, in that case it would have 
been all smooth and easy. But, it 
appears, that nota word was men. 
tioned, which could countenance 
the idea of any recognition of a re. 
sponsible cabinet council. From 
this, and from every other circum. 
stance thatapplies, [infer that such 
a council] was never legally con- 
ceived to exist.” * Such were the 
solid and iresistible arguments, by 
which Mr. Fox confuted and 
brought to disgrace the flimsy and 
superficial hypothesis of the cabinet 
council being, as such, responsible 
for the measures of administration. 
On the whol it was satisfactorily 
made out onthe side of ministry, 
that the cabinet, as such, is not re- 
sponsible for the measures of go- 
vernment ; that no individual mi- 
nister is responsible for more than 
his own acts, and such advice as he ° 
is proved to have actually given ; 
that a cabinet counsellor performs 
no duties and incurs no responsibi- 
lity, to which as a’ privy counsellor 
he is not liable; that the judges of 
England are not intended by the 
constitutien of their country to be 
such insulated beings as speculative 
writers | 
