The Power of the Cabinet July 20, 1895.

*THE WORKER*

BRISBANE, JULY 20, 1895.

The Power of the Cabinet.

[Substance of an address delivered by Mr. W. P. Morse, in the Trades hall, at a recent meeting of the Union parliament]

___________

Mr. W.D. Morse, in moving: “That the power of the Cabinet has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished,” said; The Cabinet was founded originally on what was called the Concilium Ordinarium, which was a kind of permanent committee of the Great Council or Common Council of the realm sittings of the large assembly for the purpose of transacting executive business and then becoming merged in that assembly when subsequently convened. The large number of members which were introduced into this Concillium Ordinarium made it too large a body for any practical importance, and about the reign of Henry VI. the more assiduous members of this assembly were formed into a select and confidential committee under the title of Privy Councillors.

In Edward VI.'s reign there were five of these committees, and from the date of the Restoration, not only the committees, but all the members, were sworn in as Privy Councillors.

The Privy Councillors continued to be the constitutional advisers of the Sovereign, but Charles II. objected to the long delays and restraints put upon him and his measures by submitting them to the debates of the council, and he availed himself of one of the inherent qualities of this assembly, that of referring these matters to a select committee, which he termed the Cabinet, and after they had been conducted in his small and select committees, they were submitted for more formal ratification to the whole body of the councillors.

In 1671 the accidental coincidence of a Cabinet consisting of five unprincipled members, viz, Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley and Landerd whose initials make up the word “cabal,” caused the designation to be used for some years as synonymous with Cabinet, and did much to bring the Cabinet system into disrepute. In 1679 an attempt was made to restore the Privy Council to its former position, but it failed, and Charles still concerted all his measures in the select body, or Cabinet Council, and since that time the distinction of Cabinet from Privy Council has continued.

The Privy Council still remains the only reorganised body, but the law, has drawn unto itself the chief executive function of the Government. Since the Revolution it has become the Ministry, nominally appointed by the Sovereign, but in reality an executive committee of the majority of the House of Commons, theoretically chosen by the majority, but practically nominated by the premier for the time being. This result of the Cabinet and Ministry derives its origin, as we now see it, from party government.

During the reign of William III. and Anne, much restraint was put on this executive power, put during the reign of the two first Georges it began to be fully and finally developed. George I. and George II. were aliens in blood, in language, and in political sympathies. They looked upon Great Britain as a mere appendage – and very often an irksome one – of their German electorate; the consequence was they allowed their members a free hand to develop their measures and to administer the country with as free a hand as it is possible to get under these circumstances. The Cabinet system developed and drew unto itself powers, which powers have gone on increasing with a slight opposition during the reign of George III., who strove hard to restore the lost ground and arrogate all power unto himself. It was during his reign that That Mr. Dunning proposed and carried his celebrated resolution in the House of Commons affirming “That the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.”

Since the reign of George III., the personal influence of the Sovereign has gradually decreased and the power of the Cabinet has steadily increased and is increasing to such an extent that there is a tendency now observable is our Cabinet system of engulfing the whole of the power that ought to belong to Parliament. This is largely due to the fact that when once placed in office it is very rarely ousted from it until a general election, and the main and fundamental question which is put to candidate at a general election is this – Do you support Mr. B. or do you support Mr. S. and So? - leaders of the respective parties in the House – and the question once being put they are elected upon it. They enunciate several principles, undoubtedly, but it is upon that ground a fundamental principle – do you support Mr. Nelson? or, do you support Mr. Posers? - that they are elected or rejected.

Now, that is, in my opinion, the objectionable tendency of the Cabinet, and if it is not checked it is possible that the Parliament – that the House itself – will become a mere registering body exactly the same as the Privy Council were about the time of Charles II., when he concerted all his measures in the secret council and submitted them to the Privy Councillors for mere formal ratification. The members of the Cabinet are becoming real autocrats in the country, while the people elected as representatives are becoming more and more subordinate to the influence of the Cabinet. Members now at the present time are not considered as individual independent members; they are looked upon merely as registering units for a combination or set of men. They are elected for that purpose, and when a measure is brought in before the House unless it is a catch measure it is put before the House by the cabinet. The Cabinet say: You were elected to support us; this is one of our measures. You must support it, otherwise you break your election pledge. Look at our own experience. In our own Parliament not long ago the Government introduced what was called the “Border Tax Bill.” It was rejected by the House. The majority of the country's representatives said “No; we do not want it” What was the result? The Cabinet said, “You do want it. You will have to have it,” and members were compelled to pass it. The Cabinet, in my opinion, set at defiance the whole of the members represently the majority of the voters of the colony. Take, again, the case of the payment of members. In that instance the people's representatives said, by the majority assembled in Parliament. “We want increased payment of members.” The Government says “No; you will not get it,” and notwithstanding the majority of the people's representatives declare for it the Cabinet says “No,” and the measure is not passed. Now, in addition to that, it is almost impossible, if not absolutely impossible, at the present time for a private member to carry a bill successfully through the House on account of the influence of the Cabinet, If the Government support it and say “Yes,” it will go through. If the Government do not support it, it will not go through.

I would like to ask, where is this idea of the Cabinet system of Government going to end? What is it going to evolve into? Are we to be governed by the majority of our representatives or are we merely to be governed by the Cabinet? Are our representatives to lose their identity immediately they are elected to the House and are we to have no voice in the Government of the nation? Are the cabinet for the time being to be the arbiters of the destinies of the people over whom they rule, or are the people going to be governed by their representatives? At the present time if a member diverges in ever so slight a particular he might by so doing throw the Cabinet out of office, and the result is that the whole Government of the colony is put out of gear in consequence of a man voting for what he considers his principles and opinions. In consequence of this, in my opinion, members do not vote according to their principles or convictions, but merely to keep a set of men in office which they have been elected to keep there, and in many instances by so doing they neglect the best interests not only of their electorate but of the whole colony.

Not only is this enormous power wielded by the Cabinet as a whole, but it is gradually and surely being absorbed by the Premier for the time being. Although theoretically he has no more voice in the Cabinet than an ordinary Cabinet Minister yes practically he must have, and although all the proceedings of the Cabinet are in absolute secrecy not a single note of their proceedings is ever kept. This is the body that is to have this absolute power over the destinies of the colony. The influence of the Premier is gradually and surely advancing to such an extent that at the present time he, in my opinion, holds the power of the Cabinet in his own hands. It is gradually coming to this, that steadily and surely we are advancing to a state of affairs that the Premier for the time being will become an absolute autocrat. Now I trust I have shown sufficiently clearly the object of my motion, and that it behoves the best interests of all the people to consider this objectionable and autocratic tendency of the Cabinet in relation to parliament. And unless it is checked a system as tyrannical as any in the Dark Ages is in store for us in the future.