68 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1810. 



a violation of the constitution. 

 But he could confidently appeal 

 to any one of tiiose sound and es- 

 tablished principles, of wliich the 

 constitution was tnade up, or ra- 

 ther which formed the constitu- 

 tion itself. Was it not necessary 

 that the constitutional ministers 

 of the crown should communicate 

 with each other constitutionally 

 and confideniially, on all public 

 affairs ? that they should execute 

 the business of the government 

 with united councils, and mutual 

 advice and co-operation ? Under 

 the influence of any other system 

 than that of mutual advice and 

 co-operation among ministers, if 

 an expedition were determined on 

 by the cabinet, one minister might 

 suppose that ihe object in view 

 mi^lii be best attaintd byartillery, 

 annther by infantry, another (as 

 in the late case) by a coup de 

 main ; whilst another might give 

 the preference to a division of 

 light horse. Every one might have 

 a. different opinion, and all agree 

 only in one thing, that their ad- 

 vice should be kept snug and se- 

 cret in the |)Ossession of his ma- 

 jesty. Was it possible to conceive 

 any degree of confusion worse 

 confounded than would result from 

 such a state of ministerial separa- 

 tion ? it had been argued, that 

 it was impossible for the House to 

 come to any final decision on the 

 questicm before them, as the in- 

 quiry was not yet brought to a 

 conclusion. But iVIr. Brougham 

 reminded the House, that the 

 charge against lord Chatham, for 

 the secrecy of this unconstitu- 

 tional proceeding, formed a dis- 

 tinct and entire act, the decision 

 npon which could have no effect 

 whatever upon the progress or 

 lermination of the inquiry. They 



had the admission of lord Chat-, 

 ham and t!ie answer of lord Chat- 

 ham to establish the fact. And 

 he should wish to know whether, 

 if they were to reject the resolu- 

 tions, there would not be an end 

 in future of all responsibility on 

 the part of his majesty's minis- 

 ters ? 



Mr. Bankes reminded the ho- 

 nourable and learned gentleman, 

 when he talked of the constitu- 

 tional obligation of the members 

 of the cabinet to act in concert, 

 that the cabinet council was wholly 

 unknown to the constitution. It 

 was an institution of modern in- 

 troduction, and might have been 

 an imitation, as it certainly was 

 an improvement, of the cabal of 

 a former reign. But the learned 

 gentleman, heapprehended, would 

 not easily find any act or statute, 

 by which the relative duties of the 

 members of the cabinet were de- 

 fined. In old times, the privy 

 councillors were the advisers of 

 the king. The ground on which 

 he had voted for the address, on 

 a former night, was.not connected 

 with any constitutional principle; 

 but simply this, that the House 

 having had one narrative laid upon 

 its table, and having reason to 

 suspect that another, and a pre- 

 vious one, was in existence, he 

 could see no good ground why 

 the House should call for the se- 

 cond, and not for the first. With 

 regard to the question immediately 

 under consideration, he should be 

 glad to be informed on what con-, 

 stitutional grounds it was that a 

 cabinet minister, one of his majes- 

 ty's confidential servants, should 

 not have direct access to his ma- 

 jesty ? If such a person should 

 give his sovereign advice, without 

 consulting or communicating with 



J 



