es.

II

The reader will perhaps not thank me for devoting even a short page or two
to a matter that made much clatter of tongue and pen in its day. The
points are technical, minute, and to be forgotten as quickly as possible.
But the thing was an episode, though a trivial one enough, in Mr.
Gladstone's public life, and paltry use was made of it in the way of
groundless innuendo. Being first lord of the treasury, he took besides the
office of chancellor of the exchequer. Was this a fresh acceptance of a
place of profit under the crown? Did he thereby come within the famous
statute of Anne and vacate his seat? Or was he protected by a provision in
the Act of 1867, to the effect that if any member had been duly re-elected
since his acceptance of any office referred to in the Act of Anne, he
should be free to accept any other such office without further
re-election? Mr. Gladstone had been re-elected after being first lord of
the treasury; was he free to accept the office of chancellor of the
exchequer in addition, without again submitting himself to his
constituents? The policy and object of the provision were obvious and they
were notorious. Unluckily, for good reasons not at all affecting this
object, Mr. Disraeli inserted certain words, the right construction of
which in our present case became the subject of keen and copious
contention. The section that had been unmistakable before, now ran that a
member holding an office of profit should not vacate his seat by his
subsequent acceptance of any other office "_in lieu of and in immediate
succession_ the one to the other."(294) Not a word was said in the debate
on the clause as to the accumulation of offices, and nobody doubted that
the intention of parliament was simply to repeal the Act of Anne, in
respect of change of office by existing ministers. Was Mr. Gladstone's a
case protected by this section? Was the Act of 1867, which had been passed
to limit the earlier statute, still to be construed in these circumstances
as extending it?

Unsuspected hares were started in every direction. What is a first lord of
the treasury? Is there such an office? Had it ever been named (up to that
time) in a statute? Is the chancellor of the exchequer, besides being
something more, also a commissioner of the treasury? If he is, and if the
first lord is only the same, and if there is no legal difference between
the lords of the treasury, does the assumption of the two parts by on