Upon the accession to office of the Derby administration in July 1866, the office of Lord-Advocate of Scotland was conferred upon Mr. George Patton. This gentleman was unable to obtain a seat in the House of Commons; he therefore resigned, and Mr. Gordon was appointed in his stead. He likewise failed to obtain a seat during the entire period of the session of 1867." Early in the following session, however, the Lord-Advocate was returned for the English borough of Thetford, one of the members for which resigned in order to make way for him.▾ But, meanwhile, the absence of this functionary from the House of Commons led to very great inconvenience and frequent complaints in the House, as the LordAdvocate, although not a member of the Cabinet, is a very important functionary, and is chiefly responsible for the management of Scotch business in Parliament. To some extent his place was supplied by the Scotch Lord of the Treasury, but the absence of the Lord-Advocate was admitted by the Government to be a great misfortune.' x During the continuance of this embarrassing state of affairs, the Scotch business in the House was principally entrusted to the Scotch Lord of the Treasury, under the general oversight of the Home Secretary, and in communication, out of the House, with Mr. Patton himself. This inconvenient arrangement gave additional impetus to a feeling already existing in Scotland in favour of the appointment of an Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office, to whom should be allotted the political duties now attached to the office of Lord-Advocate. This project is at present under the consideration of the Government. In one respect the proposed change would be undoubtedly advantageous, as, following the analogy in similar cases, the new Under-Secretaryship, with the sanction of Parliament, might be conferred upon a member of the House of Commons without vacating his seat. Already, as we shall have occasion hereafter to notice, Parliament has agreed to substitute an Under-Secretary in place of a Vice-President for the Board of Trade, for the express purpose of facilitating the representation of that important department in the House of Commons. The increasing difficulty of finding seats for the subor "When the ministry took office in July 1866, Mr. Patton was appointed Lord-Advocate, but on going for re-election was defeated. (Com. Journ. vol. cxxi. p. 441. Dod, Parl. Comp. 1868, p. 106.) He then resigned, and was replaced by Mr. E. S. Gordon, who was unable to get a seat until December 1867. Dod, P. 208. ▾ Hans. Deb. vol. cxc. p. 535. w Ibid. vol. clxxxv. pp. 283, 461, 721; vol. clxxxvi. pp. 397, 408, 2023; vol. clxxxvii. p. 6; vol. clxxxviii. p. 167. Ibid. vol. clxxxviii. p. 167. y Ibid. vol. clxxxvi. pp. 397, 408, 2023; vol. clxxxvii. p. 6. Project to get seats for leading the House. dinate members of an administration, not to mention the Cabinet ministers, and the growing demand for an adequate representation in both Houses of every prominent executive department," have given rise to several attempts to obtain some modification of the law requiring the vacation of the seat of a member of the House of Commons upon his accepting office, which will be noticed in another part of this chapter. Meanwhile, a proposition on this subject which was submitted to the House of Lords in 1861, and again in men out of 1867, by Lord Stratheden and Campbell, may be briefly noticed. When a bill to appropriate four seats in the House of Commons, which had been vacated by the disfranchisement of the boroughs of Sudbury and St. Alban, was under consideration in 1861, his lordship moved that, in view of the number of leading men who, at different times since the Reform Act of 1832, had been excluded from the House from local circumstances, and against the wishes of the community at large, from the want of a corrective power in the state to supply the loss to both political parties of the old nomination boroughs, and replace in Parliament men of acknowledged eminence, whom the united body of the nation would have returned but who had failed to secure the suffrages of the particular sections before whom they had presented themselves at a general election-the bill in question should be referred to a select committee to devise some means of applying these surplus seats to the purpose above mentioned. Being opposed by Government the motion was withdrawn; but Lord Stratheden took occasion to embody the arguments in favour of his proposal in a protest against the third reading of the bill. In 1867, upon the third reading of the new Reform Bill, his lordship moved the insertion of a clause to enable the House of Commons to assign seats b See post, p. 242. C Post, p. 267. d Hans. Deb. vol. clxiv. pp. 1716, 1844. to four persons who might be accidentally excluded at a general election, and whose presence in Parliament would be serviceable to the country. But the Premier (Earl Derby) having declared that it would be a waste of words to enter upon any discussion of a scheme so utterly impracticable, and so entirely at variance with the principles of our representative system,' the clause was immediately negatived. The administration is composed, for the most part, of Royal officers of state whose duties are of a decidedly political Household. character, but it also includes certain officers of the royal household who, from their intimate connection with the person of the sovereign, are supposed to possess peculiar facilities for influencing the royal mind; an influence which might be exercised to the detriment of the party in power if in the hands of their political opponents. Officers of this class, if they sit in Parliament, are bound to support the existing ministry, but they are not invariably required to be members of the legislature." public de The principle on which the direction of the chief ad- Political ministrative departments is assigned to a political officer chiefs of is, that there are great political questions involved in their partments. management. This is especially true of the different branches of the secretariat, but it holds good, more or less, in respect to every office included in the administration. Sometimes, in the progress of departmental reforms, it becomes expedient to constitute an office, hitherto deemed to be political, into a permanent non-political one. This has occurred, since 1850, in regard to one or more of the junior Lords of the Admiralty, and in the case of the mastership of the Mint. A similar arrangement was recommended by a committee of the House of Commons in 1860, in reference to the Chief Commissioner of Works, on the ground that there is nothing political in his duties, Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxix. p. 944. 'As to appointments in the royal household, see ante, vol. i. p. 188. officers ex House of and that his office is merely a department for structural works to carry out undertakings that have been sanctioned Permanent by Parliament. But if, under any circumstances, a public cluded office is made permanent, and the holder thereof not liable trom to removal upon a change of ministry, it necessarily folCommons. lows that he should cease to occupy a seat in Parliament; for it would be contrary to constitutional practice to permit any government officer to sit in the House of Commons who is not there in a representative capacity; and 'no administration would act with colleagues who were members of the House, unless they were willing to act as members of the same party." Creation of If it should be deemed advisable to increase the numnew political offices. ber of political offices by adding to the list of the responsible servants of the crown additional ministers, having charge of new departments of state, it is within the prerogative of the crown to effect the same. Within a very recent period two additional Secretaryships of State have been established, one in 1854 for War, and the other in 1858 for India. In 1847, under the authority of the Act 10 & 11 Vict. c. 109, the office of President of the Poor Law Commission was created. Again, in 1856, the office of Vice-President of the Committee of Council for Education was established, pursuant to the provisions of the Act 19 & 20 Vict. c. 116. It rests with the Government exclusively to determine whether any such changes are necessary in order to secure a greater efficiency in the public service; and they are effected by order or declaration of the Queen in Council, an Act of Parliament being required only in cases where it is necessary to make pecuniary provision for the duties to be undertaken by the new department; or when it is proposed to au Report on Miscel. Expenditure, Report Com. on Board of Ad- vol. v. p. 57; and see Hearn, Govt. of Eng. p. 250; also post, p. 258. See the discussions in the House of Commons in 1826 upon the proposal of ministers that separate and increased salaries should be allowed thorise the new minister and his secretary to sit in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, it is quite consistent with constitutional usage for the crown to receive advice in such a matter from either House of Parliament. offices pro posed. Thus, on February 12, 1857, an address was passed by the Additional House of Commons, praying that her majesty would be graciously political pleased to take into her consideration, ' as an urgent measure of administrative reform, the formation of a separate and responsible department for the affairs of public justice.' The ministers acquiesced in this resolution; although, as yet, no steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendation.' On April 6, 1841, the House of Commons was moved to address the crown to appoint a responsible Minister of Education;' but after a short debate the motion was withdrawn.m Again, on March 18, 1862, a motion was made in the House of Commons in favour of the appointment of a responsible minister, to fake charge of, and represent in Parliament, the interests of education, science, and art combined. The government opposed this motion, alleging that it was unnecessary, inasmuch as these interests were already represented in the House of Commons, partly by the VicePresident of the Education Committee, and also by officers connected with the Treasury. It was stated, however, that the question would not be lost sight of by Government, who would take steps to improve the existing regulations in reference thereto as soon as possible; and that meanwhile it would be undesirable to fetter their proceedings by the adoption of an abstract proposition on the subject. The motion was accordingly withdrawn. In the session of 1868, ministers themselves brought in a Bill for the appointment of a Secretary of State, who should have the whole range of educational matters in the United Kingdom under his control and responsibility. Owing to political difficulties arising during this session, the Bill was withdrawn." On May 19, 1868, a motion was made in the House of Commons for the appointment of a select committee to enquire into and report upon the functions of various Government offices, so far as they affect questions relating to Agriculture, with a view to provide for the due consideration of such questions by one department, respon |