Subse The statute of Anne, however, though it checked the increase of the evil, left much to be accomplished before the House of Commons could be wholly freed from the presence of all placemen, whose services were not actually required for the purposes of parliamentary government. Some few classes of office-holders had been expressly disqualified by special enactment in this and in the previous reign; nevertheless, the number of ancient offices which were still compatible with a seat in the House of Commons continued to be excessive and unwarrantable. In the first Parliament of George I. there were 271 quent laws members holding offices or pensions; being nearly one against placemen. half of the members of the then House of Commons. In the first Parliament of George II. there were 257." The reformers of that day were therefore obliged to renew their efforts to rid the House of useless officials, by whose continuance in Parliament the crown was enabled to exercise an undue influence. Place Bills were again introduced, year after year. But the court influence was too powerful to admit of their success, and it was not until 1743 (the very year of the overthrow of Walpole's administration, which had become notorious for its systematic corruption), that an Act was passed whereby a great number of inferior officers were excluded from the House of Commons. Further reforms in this direction were effected by various statutes passed in the reign of George III., so that in the first Parliament of George IV. there were but 89 office-holders, exclusive of gentlemen c. 65, and 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 24. holding commissions in the army or navy. Since then, the number of placemen sitting in the House of Commons has been further reduced by the abolition and consolidation of offices. In 1833, there were only 60 members holding civil offices or pensions, exclusive of 83 having naval or military commissions." In 1847, the total number of offices of profit which might have been held at one time, by members of the House of Commons, was stated to have been only 46, and in 1867, but 43; exclusive of certain offices in the royal household occasionally conferred upon members of Parliament, and which may be held in connection with a seat in the Commons, after re-election upon acceptance thereof. admitted by law into Commons. But inasmuch as the principal offices in the adminis- Ministers tration are not 'new offices' in the contemplation of the statute of Anne, and for the most part were in exist- House of ence long before that enactment, the holders of them are exempted from its disqualifying operation. But whenever the exigencies of state have required the creation of additional crown offices-as, for example, the new Secretaries of State for India, and for War, in our own day— it has been necessary to obtain the sanction of Parliament to the introduction of these new officers within the walls of the House of Commons. And this sanction has been afforded, in every instance, by a statute rendering the office-holder in question eligible to be elected, and to sit and vote in the House of Commons, but not dispensing with the necessity for the re-election of a member upon his first appointment to any such office. By requiring every member who should accept a non-disqualifying office to return to his constituents for a renewal of their suffrages, in his altered position as a minister of the crown, security is afforded against the undue influence of • Commons' Papers, 1833, vol. xii. p. 1. And see Mr. Brougham's speech, Parl. Deb. N. S. vol. vii. p. 1311. Return, in Commons' Papers, 1867, No. 138. And see Rogers, Stats. 18 and 19 Vic. c. 10; 21 Early use of nomination the crown in appointments to office. Owing to the acknowledged diminution of such influence in our own day, the necessity for this provision has become less obvious. It undoubtedly creates much delay and confusion in ministerial arrangements, without appearing to confer any equivalent advantage. But, as will be hereafter shown, Parliament has hitherto refused to countenance the frequent attempts that have been made to procure the removal of this restriction; although they have been advocated by statesmen of the highest authority.tt It is worthy of notice that, from the moment that the presence of the ministers of the crown in the House of boroughs. Commons was legalised, the leading statesmen of England began to avail themselves of the so-called 'nomination boroughs,' as a means of entry into Parliament. Thus, Lord Mahon states that in the times of Queen Anne, as in ours, all the eminent statesmen of the age, with scarcely one exception, owed to the smaller boroughs, now disfranchised, either their introduction into public life, or their refuge during some part of it.'" It is no sufficient explanation of this circumstance to say that it was to save themselves the trouble and expense of contesting a larger constituency that prominent statesmen so freely availed themselves of the small boroughs. As has been already remarked, the smaller boroughs served a more important purpose than this. They were the resort of public men when suffering from the effect of transient popular illwill, whether arising from local or general causes; and they have been mainly instrumental in affording stability to successive administrations, when assailed by political animosity; and have also contributed to relieve those who have undertaken official duty from the cares which must largely engross the attention of the representatives of populous constituencies." 64. tt See post, p. 267. Macaulay, Hist. of Eng. vol. iv. p. 332. See ante, vol. i. p. 11. It was a peculiar advantage attending the system of nomination boroughs-a system which must now be reckoned amongst the things that are past-that its benefits were not confined to any creed or party. While, anterior to the first Reform Bill, the Treasury could count on some 30 or 40 seats as available for the benefit of the existing administration, others were at the disposal of peers or wealthy proprietors, either as simple property, or as the result of dominant local influence. In either case, it was for the manifest interest of the proprietors of these boroughs to make choice of candidates likely to reflect credit on their patrons, by an able and successful parliamentary career. Moreover, a certain number of these boroughs were generally to be purchased or leased for a round sum of money, say for 5,000l. or upwards, and in this way men who had amassed a fortune abroad, or by trade, and who were desirous of a seat in the House of Commons, but averse to a public canvass, or wholly destitute of personal or political influence, could find an entrance into Parliament, where they often rendered themselves conspicuous by their talents or usefulness, and were afterwards eagerly sought for by more prominent and influential constituencies." having in Parlia Hallam points out, with his usual sagacity, the evil con- Advansequences which most certainly would have attended tages of upon the exclusion of the advisers of the crown from the ministers House of Commons, and the immense advantages which ment. have resulted from their immediate connection with that assembly. Nothing could have been devised more calculated to unite statesmen, of every shade of opinion, in the defence of the liberties of Parliament, or to secure for the Commons a preponderating share in the control of the executive administration, than the fact that it is in Parliament, and more especially in the House of Commons, that all great questions of public policy must, in reality, See Sir H. L. Bulwer's Historical Characters, vol. ii. pp. 207–210. And Hare on the Election of Representa- be decided. The only road to ministerial success is the approbation of Parliament. A minister may frame the most judicious schemes of administrative or economical reform, but he must be able to satisfy Parliament that his views are sound and practicable before he is permitted to carry them into execution. The publicity which necessarily attends all proceedings of government, in consequence of the presence of ministers in Parliament to explain or defend the conduct of public affairs, at home or abroad, while it is liable to abuse, is nevertheless of immense advantage to the country. This obtains for the action of government the approbation of Parliament, and the sanction of public opinion, and it is this which gives peculiar significance to the foreign policy of the British crown, and to the declarations of English statesmen upon foreign affairs. 'The pulse of Europe beats according to the tone of our Parliament; the counsels of our kings are there revealed, and by that kind of previous sanction which it has been customary to obtain, become as it were the resolutions of a senate; and we enjoy the individual pride and dignity which belong to republicans, with the steadiness and tranquillity which the supremacy of a single person has been supposed peculiarly to bestow.'* The presence of Cabinet ministers in Parliament has moreover contributed largely to enhance the importance which is properly attached to the possession of a seat in the legislature. Members of Parliament excluded from office would become mere members of a debating society, adhering to an executive;' and this is not a position calculated to gratify a noble ambition, or to stimulate zeal for the public welfare. A first-rate man, indeed, would not care to take such a place, and would not do much if he did take it.' Hallam, Const. Hist. iii. 259. And see Macaulay, Hist. Eng. iv. 339-341. Hatsell's Precedents, ii. 66. Bagehot on the Cabinet, Fortnightly Review, No. i. p. 19. Story, in his commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (§ 869) points out very forcibly the evils which have resulted from the clause in the Constitution which excludes all |