Abstract: The modern responsibility cabinet, put forward in 1906 during the late Qing reforms, was considered to be in conformity with the Chancellor ( zaixiang) system discarded by the Ming and Qing dynasties because of chaos that was brought about by the powerful ministers under that system. Therefore it was abandoned by Empress Dowager Cixi. After Puyi succeeded to the throne, the countersignature of the Grand Council for the imperial edicts was questioned by the National Assembly ( Zizheng Yuan) whether the countersignature signified the political responsibility and how to distinguish the limit of the Grand Council. This question facilitated the establishment of responsibility cabinet headed by Yikuang in May 1911. However, owing to the limited political power and executive procedures, this cabinet was more similar to the Grand Council. In contrast, the second cabinet, established after the Wuchang Uprising and headed by Yuan Shikai, had executive power and all features of the modern responsibility cabinet.

摘要： 清末预备立宪之初提出的责任内阁，一定程度上与前代宰相制度吻合，这正是清朝祖制力图防范的权臣之弊，故难以得到朝野广泛的认同，成为丙午改革中责任内阁方案搁浅的原因之一。在宣统帝继位后的监国摄政王体制下，军机大臣副署上谕、部院衙门议覆资政院已决事项的做法，引发了资政院对司法、行政两类权力是否并行，军机处是否负行政责任的疑问，进而无意中促成责任内阁在短期内筹组完毕，然重大人事任命、奏折程序、政务流程与原制度并无太大区别。武昌起义之后实行的第二次责任内阁制，则完全改变了原有的政务处理模式，内阁总理大臣由资政院推举，日常政务均由阁令发出，已具备了君主立宪制下责任内阁的主要特征。