W the House of Commons. At the commencement of Mr. Pitt's first administration, in 1783, he was the sole Cabinet minister in the House of Commons." Mr. Addington's Cabinet, in 1801, consisted of nine persons, five of whom were peers, and the remainder commoners." When Mr. Pitt returned to office, in 1804, his Cabinet consisted of twelve persons, of whom but one besides himself (that is Lord Castlereagh) was a member of the House of Commons. This objectionable arrangement arose from the impossibility of inducing the king to agree to Pitt's proposal for the formation of the ministry on a more extended basis. The want of proper assistance in the House was a severe strain on Mr. Pitt's powers, and in the following year his enfeebled health compelled him to reopen the question to the king, but his majesty continued inexorable. Pitt never again appeared in Parliament. Within a few months from this interview with the king he was no more.* After the death of Mr. Pitt, the Grenville ministry (known as‘All the Talents') was formed, which consisted of eleven members, of whom seven were peers and four members of the House of Commons. Perceval's Cabinet, in 1809, consisted of ten members, of whom six were peers, and four were commoners. Lord Liverpool's Cabinet, in 1812, consisted of twelve members, of whom ten were peers, and two only were commoners; but in 1814, the relative strength of the government, in the two Houses, was altered, by certain ministerial changes, which gave nine Cabinet ministers to the upper House and four to the lower. In 1818, there were fourteen Cabinet ministers, of whom eight were peers, and six were commoners. In 1822 (Lord Liverpool being still premier), the Cabinet was composed of fifteen members, nine of whom were peers. Since the Reform Bill, it has been customary to apportion the leading members of government more equally between the two Houses. V " See ante, vol. i. p. 78. Stanhope's Pitt, vol. iii. p. 322. * Ibid. pp. 333, 386. y Parl. Deb. vol. vi. p. xii. Mr. Sir G. C. Lewis, in Edinb. Rev. vol. cix. pp. 157 n. 177, 186, 198. derance of Lords. Upon the formation of Lord Palmerston's second administration, in 1859, the Cabinet consisted of fifteen members, of whom five were peers, and ten sat in the House of Commons. But through various casualties, which occasioned changes in the personnel of the government, it happened that from 1863 to 1865, eight of the PreponCabinet offices were held by peers, and but seven by ministers members of the House of Commons. The heads of four in the principal departments of state, viz., the War Office, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, and the Admiralty, were all of them peers, and these important departments were represented in the House of Commons by undersecretaries." This apportionment of ministerial offices between the two Houses led to much inconvenience and dissatisfaction; and advantage was taken of the retirement of the Duke of Newcastle from the Colonial Office, in 1864, to confer the seals of this department upon Mr. Cardwell, a member of the House of Commons. still the preponderance of Cabinet ministers in the upper House remained the same; for Mr. Cardwell had previously held a seat in the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which office was conferred upon a peer, the Earl of Clarendon. But who ought to be in the Com mons. On April 18, 1864, Mr. Disraeli took occasion-in a Ministers general way, and without assuming to lay down any inflexible rule upon the subject-to point out the grave objections which existed to the continuance of such an arrangement. He gave it as his opinion that the following ministers ought to find seats in the House of Commons, viz. :-the heads of the two great departments of the public expenditure,' i.e. the Army and Navy, a decided majority of the Secretaries of State, and on the whole, the great majority' of administrative officers. He showed that the constitution has practically provided for the adequate representation of the Government in the House of Lords by allowing but four out of the five Secretaries * Hans. Deb. vol. clxx. pp. 467, 1960; vol. clxxi. p. 1824. Later prac head. of State to sit in the Commons, and by requiring the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council, and the Lord Privy Seal to be chosen from amongst the peers. The Postmaster-General, moreover, was prohibited under the statute of Anne from sitting in the House of Commons, and the chief offices of the household are always held by peers, and occasionally (as in the case of Lord Wellesley) by eminent statesmen. The prime minister, although he may be selected from either House indifferently, has in the majority of cases since the Reform Bill been a member of the House of Peers. In reply to Mr. Disraeli's observations, Lord Palmerston did not attempt to dispute the general doctrine enunciated, in regard to the distribution of Cabinet offices between the two Houses, but showed that it was attributable to unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances that the proportion of Cabinet ministers allowed to each House upon the first formation of his ministry (viz. five to the Lords and ten to the Commons) had been altered, and the existing arrangements necessitated. Upon the formation of the Derby administration in tice on this 1866, seven Cabinet ministers were assigned to the Lords and eight to the Commons. The Secretaries of State for the Home, Foreign, and War Departments, and for India, all sat in the House of Commons, as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Presidents of the Boards of Trade and of the Poor Laws. While in the House of Lords the following Cabinet ministers had seats, viz. :-The Premier himself as First Lord of the Treasury, the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary for the Colonies, the President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Postmaster-General. This distribution of offices was in strict accordance with the principles advocated by Mr. Disraeli in 1864, when leader of the Opposition. Unexpected vicissitudes led, in the following year, to some change in this arrangement, by which the chiefs of the Boards of Trade and of the Poor Laws were chosen from the House of Lords; and their departments were respectively represented in the House of Commons by subordinate ministers. But no public inconvenience was occasioned by this proceeding.d minister of tages to a seat in the Lords. Admitting, however, the obvious inconveniences at- Advantending the representation of a prominent public department in the House of Commons by an officer of inferior a grade, who has no seat in the Cabinet, whilst his political chief is in the House of Lords, it has been well said that there is another side to the question, and that there is considerable practical advantage, in an administrative point of view, when you have a man at the head of an important department who has his evenings disengaged, and who is not overburdened by the enormous labour of regular attendance in the House of Commons. This should be allowed to counterbalance, in some degree, the disadvantages resulting from an undue proportion of principal ministers in the upper chamber, when, as will sometimes happen, such an adjustment of ministerial of fices becomes a political necessity. e It has been already remarked,' that in order to facilitate the representation of every prominent branch of the public service in the two Houses of Parliament, under d Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxvii. p. 877. e Report, Com. on Education, Commons Papers, 1865, vol. vi. Evid. Ante, p. 251. under of state. Represen- secretaries of state are permitted to act as auxiliaries to the chiefs of their respective departments, in the discharge secretaries of this important duty. Officers of this description are not made ineligible for a seat in the House by the 25th section of the statute of Anne (6 Anne, c. 7), inasmuch as their of fices are not new,' and therefore do not disqualify;" they are not appointed directly by the crown, and therefore do not come within the scope of the 26th section of that Act, requiring the vacation of the seat upon the first appointment to a non-disqualifying office. Moreover, the Act 15 George II. c. 22, sec. 3, which was framed for the purpose of excluding therefrom all deputies or clerks' in the principal departments of state, contains a proviso that this Act shall not be construed so as to prevent the Secretaries of the Treasury, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the Admiralty, or the Under-Secretaries to the Principal Secretaries of State, from sitting and voting in the House of Commons. Owing to the form of appointment, any one of these offices may be conferred upon a member of the House of Commons without vacating his seat. For an Under-Secretary is not appointed by the crown, but both in form and in substance, by a Secretary of State, a First Lord of the Treasury, or other minister in a corresponding position. He, therefore, in a technical sense, does not hold office under or from the crown, and does not come within the operation of that clause in the statute of Anne, which vacates the seats of all persons who shall accept of office of profit from the crown-that is to say, an office conferred by a minister in the distribution of crown patronage. Otherwise there is no real distinction between these and other political offices, either in their character, or in the tenure by which they are held.' But it is a matter of public convenience, and of considerable advantage to every administration, that they should be able to h See 2 Hatsell, pp. 51 (Mr. Cor- vol. clxxiv. P. 1237. bet's case), 61 n. Mr. E. Walpole's Earl Grey, ibid. vol. clxxxix. case. Attorney-General, Hans. Deb. p. 742. |