e
minister constitute a case of immediate succession by one commissioner to
another, or is the minister in Mr. Gladstone's circumstances an
indivisible personality as commissioner discharging two sets of duties?
Then the precedents. Perceval was chancellor of the exchequer in 1809,
when he accepted in addition the office of first lord with an increased
salary, and yet he was held not to have vacated his seat.(295) Lord North
in 1770, then chancellor of the exchequer, was appointed first lord on the
resignation of the Duke of Grafton, and he at the same time retained his
post of chancellor; yet no writ was ordered, and no re-election took
place.

Into this discussion we need not travel. What concerns us here is Mr.
Gladstone's own share in the transaction. The plain story of what proved a
complex affair, Mr. Gladstone recounted to the Speaker on August 16, in
language that shows how direct and concise he could be when handling
practical business:--

I had already sent you a preliminary intimation on the subject of
my seat for Greenwich, before I received your letter of the 14th.
I will now give you a more complete account of what has taken
place. Knowing only that the law had been altered with the view of
enabling the ministers to change offices without re-election, and
that the combination of my two offices was a proper and common
one, we had made no inquiry into the point of law, nor imagined
there was any at the time when, deferring to the wish of others, I
reluctantly consented to become C. of E. On Saturday last (Aug. 9)
when I was at Osborne, the question was opened to me. I must
qualify what I have stated by saying that on Friday afternoon some
one had started the question fully into view; and it had been, on
a summary survey, put aside. On Monday I saw Mr. Lambert, who I
found had looked into it; we talked of it fully; and he undertook
to get the materials of a case together. The Act throws the
initiative upon me; but as the matter seemed open to discussion, I
felt that I must obtain the best assistance, viz., that of the law
officers. I advisedly abstained from troubling or consulting Sir
E. May, because you might have a subsequent and separate part to
take, and might wish to refer to him. Also the blundering in the
newspapers showed that the question abounded in nice matter, and
would be all the better understood from a