The Sun.
London, England, 1870-07-27 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 1870.

THE tenacity with which professional politicians
cling to the notion of still retaining intact among the
great offices of State an undeniable sinecure, virtually
long since obsolete, like that of Lord Privy Seal, is cer-
tainly exemplary. The office itself is simply inde-
fencible. There is notoriously nothing whatever for
its holder to do in his purely nominal capacity as
Lord Privy Seal. All that can be said
in defence of it is that it is handy to have one
member of the Cabinet unoccupied in departmental
work, and who will consequently be in a position to
turn his hand to anything when his colleagues may,
any of them, chance to be hard pressed.
Seriously and in sober earnest, no one has the hardi-
hood to defend the office itself upon its own merits.
Even the stately and austere Mr. PITT in his day
could not resist the inclination to " chaff" its holder
by describing him as one whose duty it was, when
the PREMIER was a peer, to sit near him, for
the purpose of fanning away the moths in hot
weather. The Earl of DURHAM as far back as nearly
forty years ago, while giving his evidence in 1831
before a Parliamentary Committee on public sala-
ries strongly recommended then (more than the life-
time of a whole generation !) that the office of Lord
Privy Seal, as being utterly useless, should be sup-
pressed. Another similar committee nineteen years
afterwards, that is, in 1850, urged quite as strongly
the need then recognisable even more than
now for its abolition. It is true that be-
fore this last-mentioned Parliamentary Committee
there appeared one after another four notable cham-
pions for its retention—Lord MINTO, Sir ROBERT
PEEL, Lord PALMERSTON, and the present holder
of the sinecure, Viscount HALIFAX, then the Right
Hon. Sir CHARLES WOOD. All that could be said
by them in its favour, however, was that it was
worth keeping purely as a matter of convenience.
In spite of their joint opinion, however, the committee
before whom that evidence was given, decided as
we have seen upon recommending its abolition.
Notwithstanding all this, the post of Lord Privy
Seal, bearing evidently a charm6d life, contrives still
to this day to flourish in the midst of us.
Immediately upon the formation of the present
Ministry, the biographer of the GLADSTONE Govern-
ment, in the opening of his memoir of the Earl of
KIMBERLEY slily directed attention to the fact that, in
the thick of the battu of minor sinecure offices of late
years, what was evidently fair game, what he
spoke of, indeed, as a stage of ten, was left
quietly browsing in the foreground, unharmed, un-
aimed at, even by the best crack-shot among them all,
those " noble sportsmen " in the House of Commons,
the economical administrative Reformers. On the
very face of it, it seemed a monstrous anomaly that
Mr. BRIGHT of Manchester should consent without a
murmur to take his seat in a Cabinet when
he had among his his colleagues a wonderful
creature, a sort of a human dodo or dinornis
like a Lord Privy Seal. Fortunately, in one sense,
for Mr. BRIGHT, he is still out of the way when the
hon. baronet, the member for Chelsea, Sir CHARLES
DILKE, brings forward his motion in the House of
Commons for the abolition of the office twice for-
mally condemned either before or by the deliberate
decision of a Parliamentary Committee. The
PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE, had he
been present during the discussion thereby
provoked on Monday evening, could not
but in consistency have spoken and voted
for its suppression. As it was, the retention of this
purely ornamental office was voted for by nearly
three to one-60 supporting the motion of Sir
CHARLES DILKE and 170 voting against it. Better
than this surely it would be to have one or two unat-
tached administrators in every Cabinet, in the posi-
tion of what is called Ministers without portfolio.
In point of fact, a Lord Privy Seal, both in
title and in salary, is about as obsolete
to all intents and purposes, as that wonderful person-
age still surviving not so very many years ago, under
the ludicrous designation of Deputy-Assistant Chaff-
Wax. Go he must, one of these days, as a matter of
course. But, pending the 'arrival of the day of doom
that awaits him, it is certainly exemplary, as we have
said, the tenacious hold this absurd office has some-
how got upon the traditional respect of your pro-
fessed politicians.

SIR CHARLES DILKE was not well advised in
bringing forward his motion for the abolition of the
office of Lord Privy Seal. He urged it as a matter
of economy. In other words he wanted to save the
£2,000 a year which is now paid to the holder
of that office. Most persons will agree
with Sir CHARLES that sinecures ought to be
abolished, this one among the number; but that
we should save the salary is altogether out of the
question. We have not one Minister too many ; we
have too few, in fact; and most of them are under-
paid as well as over-worked. This very fact makes
the existence of a sinecurist in the Cabinet the more
glaring an anomaly. But so far from ejecting the
Lord Privy Seal, we would retain him and give him
specific duties and another name. At the present time
we see the curious anomaly of one Minister
without work, and others without pay. The LORD
PRIVY SEAL has no department, and there is or was
an unpaid Lord of the Admiralty, an unpaid Lord of
the Treasury, and an unpaid Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioner. It cannot be too clearly borne in mind that
work which is worth anything is worth paying for,
and while we share Sir CHARLES DILKE'S objection
to sinecures, we are willing to spend a good deal
more than at present upon our Ministers if they
should wish us to do so.

WE have already given our opinion upon the pro-
jected treaty between France and Prussia. It may
be instructive, it certainly is amusing, to read the.
opinions of our London contemporaries. The Times