Representation in both Houses. out any reference to his political opinions. But this is confessedly an anomalous practice, and is only retained. on account of certain peculiar advantages attending it, which have rendered it expedient to overlook its manifest infringement of the established principles of parliamentary government. There is also a partial exception, in the case of the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery-which public trusts are practically represented in both Houses by members who have been appointed trustees for special qualifications, irrespective of their political opinions, although, technically, they are subordinated to the Treasury. The representation in Parliament of every prominent should be department of state should not be confined to one chamber merely, but should always, whenever it is practicable, include both Houses. This is most desirable: firstly, because of the respect due to each separate and independent branch of the legislature; secondly, in order to promote harmony between the executive and legislative bodies; and lastly, because it tends materially to facilitate the despatch of public business through Parliament. When the representative of any particular branch of the public service in one House is the chief minister in charge of the same, having a seat in the cabinet, the department should be represented in the other House by an under-secretary, vice-president, or other subordinate officer, if possible; or otherwise, by some other member of the administration.k Complaints were made in the House of Lords, in the session of 1865, that there was no official connected with the Poor Law Department who had a seat in that House, whilst both the president and secretary of the board, as also the secretary and under-secretary of state for the home department, sat in the House of Commons.1 Note also the injurious consequences to the Foreign Office when it See ante, p. 300, and ante, vol. 1, p. 751. Hans. D. v. 198, pp. 501, 652, 996; v. 219, p. 1596. * Rep. Com. on Education, ComPap. 1865, v. 6, Earl Granville's Evid. 1883, 2317. Hans. D. v. 178, pp. 5, 193. has happened that both the secretary of state and the political undersecretary were in the House of Lords, and no representative in the House of Commons.m In 1875, Lord Hampton was appointed chief of the civil service commission (with a salary of 2,000l. a year) expressly that he might authoritatively explain the policy and proceedings of the commission to the House of Lords." tion of in each The proportion of cabinet ministers to be assigned to Proporeither House of Parliament necessarily varies according cabinet to circumstances. It is impossible to fix any rule in ministers regard to a matter which must depend altogether upon House. the strength of parties, and the amount of available talent at the disposal of an existing administration. The prime minister is responsible for the distribution of the chief offices of government between the two Houses of Parliament. But this is not infrequently a very difficult task. As a leading principle it may be stated that every department entrusted with the expenditure of public money should be represented in the House of Commons either by its head or by its political secretary. Moreover, the increasing weight and influence to which the House of Commons has attained, in public affairs, has rendered it advisable that a larger proportion of cabinet ministers should have seats in that chamber. Under-secretaries of state, however able, are not in a position to declare or defend the policy of government, with the freedom, intelligence, and responsibility that are needful, in order to satisfy the demands of the House of Commons. In fact, they merely hold a brief, and are required to justify a policy in the framing of which they have had no share. It is curious to observe the change in constitutional practice within the present century, in the relative proportion of cabinet ministers in the two chambers; a m Rep. Com. Dip. Service, Ev. 4436; Com. Pap. 1870, v.7. In 1876, the lord privy seal represented the Admiralty in the H. of L., Hans. D. v. 227, p. 503. n Hans. D. v. 227, p. 507. p. 364. Proportion of cabinet in each House. change which is a striking indication of the growth of power on the part of the lower House. The first ministers cabinet of George III. (in 1760) consisted of fourteen persons, thirteen of whom were peers, and but one a member of 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.s 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, Mr. W 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. derance 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 Preponthe cabinet offices were held by peers, and but seven of minisby members of the House of Commons. The heads of ters in the four 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 under-secretaries. 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. But 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. On April 18, 1864, Mr. Disraeli took occasion-in a 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 follow170, pp. 467, 1960; W Sir G. C. Lewis, Administrations, pp. 349, 383, 397, 414. * Hans. D. v. v. 171, p. 1824. who ought to be in the Com mons. Ministers ing 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 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, (which were reiterated, with certain qualifications in 1874),* 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.a On June 19, 1865, the subject was again discussed in the House of Commons, upon a motion by Mr. Darby Griffith to resolve that in the opinion of this House it would be convenient, under present circumstances, that the secretary of state for war should be a member of the House of Commons.' The motion was opposed by Lord ▾ But this disability has been since removed by the Act 29 & 30 Vict. ch. 55. z Hans. D. v. 219, p. 1611. a Ib. v. 174, pp. 1219, 1232. Ib. v. 175, p. 596. |