Officers of the When a party goes out of power certain officers in the Royal Household go out also, and their places are filled by adherents of the dominant party. This practice began at the close of the hold. reign of George III., and was firmly established during the reign of Queen Victoria. It might seem at first thought that the Cabinet ministers were in rather small business when meddling with the appointment of officers in the King's Household who have nothing to do with the affairs of state. It would seem that they might well turn their attention to the offices strictly political in their nature and leave the management of the Royal Household in the hands of the Crown. It might also seem that an injustice was done when George III. was compelled to dismiss Lord Hertford, his Lord Chamberlain, who had rendered satisfactory service for fifteen years, and at the same time to appoint Lord Effingham - a man personally objectionable to him to the office of Treasurer of the Household. It might seem, too, at first thought, that politics was obtruding itself unduly into the King's domestic life when the venerable Lord Bateman, the King's personal friend, was compelled to resign as Master of the Buckhounds because of a change of Ministry. Yet a "kitchen Cabinet" has long been all powerful, and the dominant party might be greatly embarrassed in case certain important officials living in semi-confidential relations to the Crown were beyond its control and held office at the pleasure of the King. It has been held, and correctly so, with the Crown by the various secretaries without the intervention of the Prime Minister. that "the responsible ministers of the Crown are entitled to advise the Crown in every point in which the royal authority is exercised." The Cabinet ministers are responsible for every act of government, and their influence should not be weakened by any possible advice of an opposite character which an irresponsible partisan might give. It is, then, now a well-established principle that the incoming party has the right to fill certain important offices in the Royal Household. At the accession of Queen Victoria a new phase of the matter appeared. The question arose, "Should the ladies of the Queen's Household vacate their offices on a change of Ministry?" Sir Robert Peel, when asked to form a Ministry, answered the question in the affirmative. He held that the ladies of the household, including the ladies of the bedchamber, should change with the administration. The Queen objected to this view and contended that she possessed the right to control these appointments absolutely, and expressed her determination to make no change. Peel then declined to form a Cabinet and Lord Melbourne was reinstated, and his Ministry at once declared that in their opinion the principle of change in office upon a change in Ministry should not "be applied or be extended to the offices held by ladies in her Majesty's Household." In later life Lord Melbourne is said to have acknowledged that he made a mistake in this respect. Two years later the Melbourne Ministry went out of power, and Peel became Prime Minister, and we are told that the Queen withdrew her opposition, and that "no difficulties were raised on the bedchamber question." Through the intervention of Prince Albert, the husband of the Queen, the matter was amicably settled. Those ladies who were related to the members of the retiring Cabinet and who consequently might exert a contrary influence, vacated their offices. The others did not. This stand of Sir Robert Peel is now held to be correct from the constitutional standpoint; and since his time the mistresses of the robes and ladies of the bedchamber, when related to the retiring ministers, have been compelled to vacate their offices upon a change of Ministry, while those ladies not belonging to "political" families have not been disturbed. English experience has demonstrated the necessity of these precautions. Queen Anne was completely under the sway of Sarah Jennings, Duchess of Marlborough and Mistress of the Robes. It was said that the latter "decided everything, from questions of state to the cut of a gown or the colour of a ribbon, so that it finally grew to be a common saying, 'that Queen Anne reigns, but Queen Sarah governs.' Mrs. Masham, in the same office, later acquired a like ascendency. These facts gave rise to Hallam's remark that" the fortunes of England were changed. by the insolence of one waiting-woman and the cunning of another." The appointment of ambassadors and other foreign ministers is subject to the same rule which applies to domestic appointments. It might seem that the King should be left free to appoint whomsoever he saw fit as his pri- The Private vate secretary. Such is not the case, how- the Sovereign. ever, and for good reasons. The private secretary, Secretary of is of necessity on very intimate terms with the Crown and might influence his royal master in the affairs of state. For this reason he should be in sympathy with the Government of the day. If it were otherwise, the Cabinet might be placed at a disadvantage. George III. was the first of the English monarchs to have a private secretary. Before his time one of the secretaries of state rendered the necessary assistance in carrying on the royal correspondence. George III. took upon himself many of the details of government, and when his eyesight failed in 1805, he moved to Windsor away from contact with the Cabinet ministers, and a private secretary became indispensable. The office was accordingly established, and the first incumbent, Col. Herbert Taylor, was appointed on the recommendation of Mr. Pitt, the Prime Minister. A new phase of the question appeared at the accession of Queen Victoria. The new Queen was but eighteen years of age and inexperienced in matters of government, and Lord Melbourne, the Prime Minister, determined that it was not wise to appoint a private secretary for her, as such an officer might have undue influence. The Premier himself undertook to act as royal private secretary. His action in this respect was severely criticised and even characterised as an unconstitutional interference; and after the marriage of the Queen, Feb. 10, 1840, her husband, Prince Albert, became the private secretary with the approval of the Cabinet. The office still remains under the control of the Ministry and is now filled by Lord Knollys. The power of appointment was greatly abused in England as late as a century ago, but public opinion would not now tolerate the shameless cor- Abuse of ruption existing in the time of George III. Patronage. Yet the distribution of offices is still partisan to some extent. The candidate's qualifications are carefully scrutinised, but the patronage is distributed in such a way as to strengthen the dominant party. Although a healthy tone pervades English politics, the spirit of the spoilsman is not entirely wanting. The Crown, as the legal head of the Church, has control, in theory, of the ecclesiastical appointments. Bishops, however, and other important officials in the Church are appointed upon the advice of the Prime Minister, while the Lord Chancellor appoints many of the minor officers. The appointment of the rectors and vicars of parish churches is in various hands, and the advowson, or right of presenting or nominating, is now regarded as private property. Political considerations for obvious reasons influence the Cabinet ministers in making appointments of bishops and archbishops. In making appointments or promotions in the army or navy the ministers of the Crown are expected to relegate partisanship to the background and to act exclusively upon the merits of the case. This they do for the most part. Again, in making appointments in the diplomatic service, fitness and not politics is supposed to be the primary consideration. In judicial appointments, however, partisanship is evident. The Lord Chancellor is a member of the |