PRIME MINISTER. Though a Wolsey or a Cecil might, in practice, achieve for a time a predominant position among the counsellors of the English Crown, the persistence of the doctrine that ministers were all equally royal servants, severally responsible to the sovereign for their respective departments, was for cen turies fatal to the recognition of any such predominance in theory. Thus Burnet describes Clarendon as "chief, or the only, minister," but the latter knew only too well that the style "first minister" was "a title so newly translated out of French into English that it was not enough understood to be liked, and every man would detest it for the burden it was attended with." Even in the century it is more usual to find partnerships of two or three indi viduals, such as Marlborough and Godolphin, Harley and St. John, Stanhope and Sunderland, Townshend and Walpole, New castle, Henry Pelham and Hardwicke, sharing the principal burden of government. But the place vacated by the sovereign when, from 1717 onwards, he ceased to attend cabinet meetings, had necessarily to be filled by a single individual, and this presiding officer developed naturally, almost inevitably, into a prime minis ter. Walpole, though he "unequivocally denied" the title, is usually reckoned the first of the line, and certainly during his last spell of office (172o-42) he developed many of the attributes of premiership. He was master of his cabinet ; he insisted on a general subscription by his colleagues to the Whig principles ; he dismissed his opponents; he dispensed the royal patronage; and, with reservations, he may be described as commanding a majority in the House of Commons. How novel, how dangerously un popular, such a position still was may be gathered from the pro ceedings of both houses in 1741. "According to our Constitution," said Sandys, "we can have no sole and prime minister . . every . . officer has his own proper department ; and no officer ought to meddle in the affairs belonging to the department of another." And the minority in the House of Lords was, if pos sible, even more downright. "We are persuaded," they protested,
"that a sole, or even a first minister, is an officer unknown to the law of Britain, inconsistent with the Constitution of the country and destructive of liberty in any Government whatsoever." On the fall of Walpole the further development of the office was checked, firstly, by the group system and consequent group Coalition Governments of the latter half of George II.'s reign, and later, by the interference of George III., who aspired to be himself "the only element of coherence in a ministry." Thus Grenville (1763-65) thought that "Prime Minister is an odious title," and North (177o-82) would not countenance it even from his own family. It was the younger Pitt who, on the fall of per sonal government, consolidated the work of his predecessors and by his long tenure of power (1783-1801) accustomed the nation to the office, if not to the name. The extent of his achievement can be measured by the terms of his famous interview with Lord Melville in 1803. They are axiomatic. He "stated not less pointedly and decidedly his sentiments with regard to the absolute necessity there is in the conduct of the affairs of this country, that there should be an avowed and real minister, possessing the chief weight in the council, and the principal place in the con fidence of the king. In that respect there can be no rivalry or division of power. That power must rest in the person generally called the first minister, and that minister ought, he thinks, to be the person at the head of the finances. . . ." Nevertheless, old prejudices die hard. In 1806 it could still be said in parliament that "the Constitution abhors the idea of a prime minister," and in 1829 that "nothing could be more mischievous or uncon stitutional than to recognize by act of parliament the existence of such an office." Such recognition was not granted until 1905, and even now the prime minister is known to the law merely as some one who has precedence next after the archbishop of York.