As a

Symbol.

matters of this kind are regarded by many people as of prime importance. A kindred result of the same social force has been a marked increase in what Bagehot called the spirit of deference, and what those who dislike it call snobbishness a tendency by no means confined to the British Isles. All this has exalted the regard for titles and offices, and enhanced the attractiveness of those who bear them. In prestige the titled classes have profited thereby, and although their position is less and less dependent upon court favour, the royal family has also profited directly. The presence of some one of its members is sought at ceremonies of all kinds, whether it be the opening of a new building, the inauguration of a charity, or an anniversary celebration at a university. The attendance of the King on such occasions insures an extended report in all the newspapers of the country, and is, therefore, a most effective form of advertisement.

A century or more ago people who had learned nothing from the history of Greece or Rome, and above all of Venice, were wont to assert that the sentiment of loyalty requires a person for its object. No one would make such a statement now. No one pretends that the English would be less patriotic under a republic; and yet with the strengthening conception of the British Empire, the importance of the Crown as the symbol of imperial unity has been more keenly felt. To most countries the visible symbol of the state is the flag; but curiously enough there is no British national flag. Different banners are used for different purposes; the King himself uses the Royal Standard; ships of war carry at the peak the White Ensign; naval reserve vessels fly the Blue Ensign, and merchantmen the Red Ensign; while the troops march, and Parliament meets, under the Union Jack; and all of these are freely displayed on occasions of public rejoicing. There is a tendency at the moment to speak of the Union Jack as the national flag, but a recent occurrence will illustrate how far this is from being justified. A British subject residing at Panama had been in the habit

of flying the Red Ensign, until one day he hoisted in its place
the Union Jack. Now, according to the regulations the
Jack is displayed from the consulates, and the British con-
sul requested his patriotic fellow-citizen not to use it on his
private house. The question was finally referred to the
British Foreign Office, which in deference to a law of Panama
forbidding all private display of alien flags, supported the
position of the consul, but refrained from expressing any
opinion on the right of an English citizen to hoist the Union
Jack in foreign parts. Each of the self-governing colonies
has, moreover, its own flag, which consists of the Union
Jack with some distinctive emblem upon it. One of the
first acts of the new Commonwealth of Australia was to
adopt a separate flag of this kind. The government held a
competition in designs, and some thirty thousand were
presented. From these one was selected which showed at
the same time the connection with the empire and the self-
dependence of the commonwealth. It is the Union Jack
with a southern cross and a six-pointed star at one end,
a design that seems to have been more shocking to heraldic
than to imperialist sensibilities.

The Crown is thus the only visible symbol of the union of the empire, and this has undoubtedly had no inconsiderable effect upon the reverence felt for the throne.

Monarchy.

Whatever the utility of the Crown may be at the present Popularity time, there is no doubt of its universal popularity. A of the generation ago, when the Queen, by her seclusion after the death of Prince Albert, neglected the social functions of the court, a number of people began to have serious doubts on the subject. This was while republican ideals of the earlier type still prevailed, and before men had learned that a republic is essentially a form of government, and not necessarily either better or worse than other forms. The small republican group in England thought the monarchy useless and expensive; but people have now learned that republics are not economical, and that the real cost of

1
1 The Times, Sept. 17, 1903.

maintaining the throne is relatively small.' So that while the benefits derived from the Crown may not be estimated more highly, or admitted more universally than they were at that time, the objections to the monarchy have almost entirely disappeared, and there is no republican sentiment left to-day either in Parliament or the country.

1 Hans., 4 Ser. XCIV., 1500. The Civil List of Edward VII. was fixed at his accession at £543,000, to which must be added about £60,000 of revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster, and also the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall which go to the heir apparent as Duke of Cornwall. Rep. Com. on Civil List, Com. Papers, 1901, V., 607.

CHAPTER III

THE CABINET AND THE MINISTERS

Fixed Traditions.

A GERMAN professor in a lecture on anatomy is reported Absence of to have said to his class, "Gentlemen, we now come to the spleen. About the functions of the spleen, gentlemen, we know nothing. So much for the spleen." It is with such feelings that one enters upon the task of writing a chapter upon the cabinet; although that body has become more and more, decade by decade, the motive power of all political action. The fact is that the cabinet from its very nature can hardly have fixed traditions. In the first place, it has no legal status as an organ of government, but is an informal body, unknown to the law, whose business is to bring about a coöperation among the different forces of the state without interfering with their legal independence. Its action must, therefore, be of an informal character. Then it meets in secret, and no records of its proceedings are kept, which would in itself make very difficult the establishment and preservation of a tradition. This could, indeed, happen only in case of a certain permanence among the members who could learn and transmit its practice. But a new cabinet contains under ordinary circumstances none of the members of its predecessor. A Conservative minister knows nothing of the procedure under Liberal administrations; and we find even a man of the experience of Sir Robert Peel asking Sir James Graham about the practice of a Liberal cabinet, of which that statesmanwho at this time changed his party every decade - had formerly been a member.1 No doubt the mode of transacting business varies a good deal from one cabinet to 'Parker, "Sir Robert Peel," III., 496.

Nature of

the Cabinet.

Functions of the Cabinet.

1

another, depending to a great extent upon the personal
qualities of the members. Still, the real nature of the work
to be done, and hence the method of doing it, have changed
during the last half century less in the case of the cabinet
than of any of the other political organs of the state, and one
can observe certain general characteristics that may be noted.
The conventions of the constitution have limited and
regulated the exercise of all legal powers by the regular
organs of the state in such a way as to vest the main au-
thority of the central government the driving and the
steering force in the hands of a body entirely unknown
to the law. The members of the cabinet are now always
the holders of public offices created by law; but their pos-
session of those offices by no means determines their activity
as members of the cabinet. They have, indeed, two func-
tions. Individually, as officials, they do the executive
18.1
work of the state and administer its departments; col-
lectively they direct the general policy of the government,
and this they do irrespective of their individual authority
as officials. Their several administrative duties, and their
collective functions are quite distinct; and may, in the
case of a particular person, have little or no connection.
The Lord Privy Seal, for example, has no administrative
duties whatever; and it is conceivable that the work of
other members might not come before the cabinet during
the whole life of the ministry.

The essential function of the cabinet is to coördinate and guide the political action of the different branches of the government, and thus create a consistent policy. Bagehot called it a hyphen that joins, a buckle that fastens, the executive and legislative together; and in another place he speaks of it as a committee of Parliament chosen to rule the nation. More strictly, it is a committee of the party that has a majority in the House of Commons. The minority are not represented upon it; and in this it differs from every other parliamentary committee. The distinction is so obvious to us to-day, we are so accustomed to govern