308 UNDERSECRETARIES OF STATE FOR April

purchased a new seigneury, which before the purchase had been

charged, that lord would not be exempt by the new purchase.
But the seigneuries which were parcel of the ancient seigneuries
and baronies would be discharged and quit. Culpepper J.
affirmed that the Statute 12 Richard II c. 12 had been made upon
this point. The report then proceeds to a query which is left
unanswered. ' Quaere, whether, if a lord purchases an ancient
seigneury of a lord, he will be discharged, or not, and whether if

Downloaded from http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of New South Wales on August 23, 2015
one who is not a lord purchases an ancient seigneury, he will be
held discharged, or not.' x Apparently, then, even at this date,
there was some doubt whether peerage had or had not some
essential connexion with the recognition of this exemption.
S. B. CHKIMES.

Under-Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs, 1782-1855

IT is remarkable how very little is known about the development
of our great departments of state during the nineteenth century.
A few writers on diplomatic history have discussed the internal
organization of the Foreign Office during the period with which
they are particularly concerned.2 But neither diplomatic historians
nor writers on constitutional practice have examined the precise
nature of the relation between the secretaries and the under-
secretaries of state and the house of commons. The efforts of a
prime minister to form a cabinet, his struggle to accommodate his
friends and to weld together his party by a judicious allocation of
offices, are now, largely, a matter of history. But the magnitude
of his task can only be realized when it is remembered that the
question was complicated during the first half of the nineteenth
century by a constitutional issue, involving the position in the
house of commons of the principal and of the under-secretaries of
state of the three departments of home, foreign, and war and
colonial affairs. Only the position of the under-secretary of state
for foreign affairs is dealt with here ; but in order to understand
this question, it is necessary first to consider the position in the
house of commons of the principal secretary of Btate.
•Y.B. 11 Henry IV. Mich. pi. 4 (1679, ed. fo. 2). 'Quaere si un Seigniur
purchase un ancient seigniory d'un Seignior, Bil eerra discharge, ou si un que nest
my Seignior, purchase ancient seigniory, sil tiendra discharge ou non.'
1
See C. K. Webster, The Foreign Policy of Castlercagh, 1815-22 (1926), pp. 29 ff.,
and The Foreign Policy of GatUertagh, 1812-15 (1931), pp. 44 ff. ; Harold Temperley,
The Foreign Policy of Canning, 1822-27 (1925), pp. 268 ff. On the eighteenth century,
see Mark A. Thomson, The Secretaries of StaU, 1681-1782 (1932). After this article was
written, I was privileged to read the proofs of the chapters on the under-secretaries of
state in The Foreign Office, S. Gaselee and Sir John Tilley (London, 1933).
The abbreviations F.O. and T., used in this article, refer to the Foreign OBico ami
Treasury Records deposited in the Public Record Oflice.
1934 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 1782-J855 300

In the sixth year of Queen Anne an act was passed which stipu-
lated that no person, holding ' any new office or place of profit
whatsoever under the Crown ', created after 25 October 1705, should
IKS capable of sitting as a member of the house of commons.1 At
that time there existed two principal secretaries of state, the one for
the northern, and the other for the southern, department. In
1768, however, a third secretary of state was appointed, whose
business it was to deal with the affairs of the American colonies and,

Downloaded from http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of New South Wales on August 23, 2015
later, when the colonies declared their independence, to conduct
the war against them. Accordingly, in 1782, the war being over
and the colonies lost, it was enacted that ' the office commonly
called or known by the name of Third Secretary of State, or Secre-
tary of State for the Colonies ' should be abolished. ' If any office '
the act continued, ' of the same name, nature, description, or pur-
pose . . . shall be established hereafter, the same is and shall be
deemed and taken as a new office, to all constructions, intents, and
purposes whatsoever.'2 No part of this act affected the act of
Queen Anno ; on the contrary, from 1782 onwards, under the new
arrangement of the business of state carried out in this same year,
the heads of the departments for home and for foreign affairs were
the only two principal secretaries of state legally capable of sitting
as members of the house of commons. And indeed, although the
interpretation placed upon the term ' Third Secretary of State '
varied as it suited the purposes of any particular administration,3

1
Act 0 Anne, c. 7, s. xxv. Statutes at Large, iv. 281. On the secretary of state for
the Scottish department, see Thomson, op. cit. pp. 29 ff.
•Act 22 George III, c. 82, ss. i. k ii. Statutes at Large, xiv. 202 f. On the
history of this office, see the article by A. H. Basye, ' The Secretary of State for the
Colonies 1768-82 ', American Historical Review, xxviii. 13 ff.
1
In 1794, in order to facilitate a coalition with the Portland WhigB, Henry Dundas,
who, since 1791, in addition to his duties as secretary of state for the home department
had managed the affairs of the war against France, relinquished the Home Office to make
room for the duke of Portland. Dundas continued to conduct the war, but from a
different office ; for on 11 July 1794 he became the head of a separate establishment,
the department for war; see Sixteenth Report, 19 July 1797. Reports from the Com-
mittees of the House of Commons, vol. xii (Finance Reports, 1797-8), pp. 297 ff. Thus
Grenville and Portland, the heads of the old-established departments of state, were
members of the house of lords, and Dundas, the head of the new department of state,
was a member of the house of commons. The attacks of the opposition on the uncon-
stitutional nature of this arrangement compelled the government to state their opinion
(which the house accepted) that in any particular administration, the secretary of state
who last received his seals of office was to be regarded as the third secretary of state
under the teims of Burke's Act (1782), the holder of which was incapacitated by the act
of Queen Anne from sitting as a member of the house of commons. Four years later,
however, when Lord Hawkesbury, then a member of the house of commons for Rye, wan
appointed to succeed Lord Grenville as secretary of state for the foreign department
(one of the two old-established departments of state), the house resolved that Hawkes-
bury wns capable of being a member, notwithstanding that he wan the last to accept the
office of secretary of state ; see Parliamentary ReijisUr, iv (1797-8), pp. 115 ff. and xiv
(1801), pp. 472 ff. Thus, whereas in 1797 it had been decided that Dundas was not
third secretary of state because his colleague had been appointed after him, it was now
established that the question depended entirely UJKJH the nature of the office.
310 UNDERSECRETARIES OF STATE FOR April
the spirit of the acts of 1707 and of 1782 was always preserved ; for
their chief aim had been to restrict the means whereby the Crown
might exercise a preponderating influence upon the house of
commons, and there is no instance in the period from 1782 to 1855
when more than two principal secretaries of state Rat in the house
of commons at the same time.1
We may now consider the position in the house of commons of
the xinder-secretary of state. Section xxvi of the act of 1707

Downloaded from http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of New South Wales on August 23, 2015
enacted that, if any person, being a member of the house of com-
monB, should accept' any office of profit from the Crown ', his elec-
tion shoiild be declared void and a new writ be issued, provided,
however, that such person should be capable of being re-elected.*
This applied to alloffices, old and new, and upon this clause rested the
practice by which members of the house of commons, when taking
office in the government, resigned their seats and offered themselves
for re-election. Now, during the period with which we are con-
cerned, no under-secretary of state vacated his seat on his appoint-
ment to office. That is to say, the uniform practice of the house of
commons asserted distinctly that the office of under-secretary of
Htate was not an office of profit under the Crown, within the terms
of the act of 1707, whether created before or after 1705. And in
fact, an under-secretary of state was not appointed by the Crown,
but by one or other of the principal secretaries of state. Accord-
ingly, since it was the holder of any new office under the Crown who
was incapacitated from sitting in the house of commons, the act
of 1707 in no way restricted the number of under-secretaries of
state capable of sitting simultaneously in the house of commons.
This principle was, in part, reaffirmed during the reign of
George II. In 1742 it was enacted that certain persons, deputies
or clerks in certain government offices, including those of the prin-
cipal secretaries of state, were not capable of sitting as members
of the house of commons. But a proviso was added to the effect
that nothing in the said act should extend to, or exclude, ' the
Under-Secretary to any of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of
State '.' Granting, indeed, that it was the intention of the legis-
lators of 1742 to permit only one under-secretary to each of His
Majesty's principal secretaries of state to sit as members of the
house of commons, nevertheless, the act definitely excluded the
office of under-secretary of state from the category of ' new ' offices.
It is clear, therefore, that the only restriction upon the number of
1
In 1854, owing to the increasing pressure of business anting from the Crimean war,
a separate department for war was established. Accordingly, in the following year it
was enacted,' That any three of H.M.'s Principal Secretaries of State for the time being,
nnd any three of the Under Secretaries for the time being to H.M.'s Principal Secretaries
of State, may sit and vote as members of the House of Commons' (18 & 10 Viet. c. i.).
Public Statutes, xxii (1855), p. 522.
1
This was reaffirmed by 41 George HI, c. 52, s. ix. Public Statutes, i. 100.
* 15 George II, c. 22, a. iii. Statutes at Large, vi. 458 f.
1934 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 1782-1855 311

under-secretaries capable of sitting simultaneously in the house of

commons rested upon the existing number of the principal secre-
taries of state, and that when, as in 1794, a third department of
state was established, an under-secretary from each of the three
departments was legally capable of sitting as a member of the
house of commons.
At this point it is important to realize that each secretary of
state was independent in the administration of his own depart-

Downloaded from http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of New South Wales on August 23, 2015
ment. Subject to a varying degree of supervisory control by the
prime minister, in the matter of appointments the secretary of state
would be guided by a variety of motives arising from his own per-
Bonal character, his social and political connexions, and from his
own peculiar methods of administration. This is especially true
of appointments to the two highest offices, those of the two
under-secretaries of state ; and in this respect the case of Canning
is of special importance. Canning was nothing if not ambitious ;
a brilliant parliamentarian, he, when in office, made the presence
of a second representative of the Foreign Office in the house of
commons entirely unnecessary and, what is easily intelligible from
the very nature of the man, considered it as equally undesirable.
And indeed, all those appointed by him to the office of under-
secretary of state were men who, at the date of their appointment,
did not sit as members of the house of commons.1 Moreover, Can-
ning considered that the pressure of business attached to the office
of under-secretary in the foreign department was too great to
allow its holder to attend as a member of parliament. Accord-
ingly, in offering the office of under-secretary to Charles Bagot in
August 1807, he virtually made it a condition that Bagot, if he
accepted, should give up his seat in the house of commons. ' The
labour ', he wrote, ' is very hard, and it is daily and constant. It
requires entire devotion to it. I think Parliament is wholly incom-
patible with the due discharge of the duty.' The five months which
elapsed before the opening of the new session were apparently suffi-
cient to convince Bagot of the truth of Canning's statement: he
1
Tho number of under-seuretaries formally appointed by Canning was seven (in-
cluding George Hammond, reappointed on 30 March 1807. For the case of Backhouse,
see infra, p. 316, n. 1). James Edward, Viscount Fitzharris (afterwards second earl of
Malmesbury), appointed on 30 March 1807, had been returned for Horsham, but owing
to an irregularity in his election, the return was taken off the file. On 8 May 1807, how-
ever, Fitzhanis was returned as member for Heytesbury. He resigned office because, as
Canning told Bagot (see infra, p. 312, n. 1), he found the business of office and parliament
too heavy. Lord Francis Conyngham (afterwards earl of Mount Charles), appointed on
0 January 1823, was returned to parliament as member for Donegal on 21 February
1825. He resigned office two months later. The remaining undersecretaries appointed
by Canning were either members of the house of lords or without a seat in either house.
(The dates of the appointments of the under-secretaries of state for foreign affairs from
1799 to 1850, given in Joseph Haydn, The Book of Dignities (1894), are fairly reliable.
Thoy were supplied to Haydn in 1850 in tho form of an official list drawn up at the
Foreign Ofliue in that year; tsoe *\O. 3W5/3O7, p. 2(57 f.)
312 UNDERSECRETARIES OF STATE FOR April
accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and a new writ was issued for
Castle Rising.1
Bftgot's decision, however, had an unforeseen bearing upon the
constitutional issue. In 1794 a third department of state having
been established, an under-secretary for war, Sir Evan Nepean
was appointed. In 1801 the principal secretary of state for war and
the colonies was considered to be incapable of sitting as a member

Downloaded from http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of New South Wales on August 23, 2015
of the house of commons ; * but no disability was attached to the
office of under-secretary in his department, for William Huskisson,
who held that office from 1795 to 1801, sat in the house of commons
from May 1795, as member for Morpeth. In the autumn of 1807,
however, an unprecedented situation arose. During the vacation,
Charles Cecil Hope Jenkinson, M.P. for Sandwich, Charles Bagot,
M.P. for Castle Rising, and Charles William Stewart, M.P. for
Londonderry County, were appointed under-secretaries of state for
the departments of home, foreign, war and colonial affairs respec-
tively. Bagot resigned, while Jenkinson and Stewart retained both
their offices and their seats in the house of commons. Ignorant,
however, of the real motives which led to Bagot's resignation, but
naturally aware of the exterior circumstances which attended it,
statesmen, law-officers of the Crown, and constitutional historians
of a later age interpreted Bagot's decision to vacate his seat as a
step dictated by the legal enactments of 1705 and 1782. That there
was nothing in those statutes which prevented three under-secre-
tariee, after the creation of a third secretary of state in 1794, from
sitting simultaneously in the house of commons has been made
clear ; nevertheless, the vacation of his seat by Charles Bagot was
held to have created a precedent, and not once during the course of
the next half-century did more than two under-secretaries of state
sit in the house of commons at the same time.
Arising from this fact, it follows that in speaking of the depart-
ment for foreign affairs during the first half of the nineteenth
century, it is somewhat misleading to qualify either of the two
under-secretaries of state by the term ' parliamentary ', for this
suggests a person who, by tho nature of his office and in contrast
with that under-secretary who did not change with every subse-
quent administration, represented his department in one or other
of the two houses of parliament.3 That the possession of a seat in
1
Canning to Bagot, 8 August 1807, and Wellesley Polo to Bagot, 8 August 1807.
Josceline Bagot, George Canning and his Friends, 2 vols., 1009, i. 238 ff. The new writ
was issued on 22 January 1808, the second dayof the new session ; Commons Journals,
vol. 63 (1808-9), p. 6.
1
See supra, p. 309, n. 3.
* Although the term political under-secretary is less objectionable, since it does not
connote to the same degree as the term parliamentary nnder-secretary a necessary con-
nexion with parliament, yet, for the present purpose, it has been found convenient to
coin the term <jovcruinout under-secretary. It is significant that in a letter from Palmer-
1934 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 1782-1855 313

parliament was not a necessary qualification for holding this office

is quite evident, for from 1809 (when Bagot resigned office) down
to 1855, no less than ten government under-secretaries for foreign
affairs held office without being members of either of the two houses
of parliament.1
The question arises of the division of labour between the two
under-secretaries in the Foreign Office. It has been customary to
assume that the office of the so-called permanent under-secretary

Downloaded from http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of New South Wales on August 23, 2015
of state, as distinct from that of the government under-secretary,
dated from the appointment of George Aust on 20 February 1790.1
This assumption, however, is partly erroneous. On 30 June 1788
the commissioners appointed in 1785 to inquire into the fees, gratui-
ties, and other emoluments received in the Public Offices, completed
their task. In their report on the office of the secretaries of state
they observed that the official duty of the under-secretaries had
, recently been executed by one person in each department, and that
in the Foreign Office one of these offices had never been filled up
since the existing secretary of state, the marquis of Carmarthen,
came into office.*
It is therefore reasonable to conclude [observed the commissioners] that for
the necessary official business of each department, one under-secretary is
sufficient; and we are of opinion that for the obvious reason of preventing
the confusion and serious consequences that may arise in business of such
high importance, from frequent changes, such officer ought to be made
stationary. But as we conceive that the private and confidential business
of a principal secretary of state may require the assistance of another person,
it may be expedient that the principal secretary of state for the time being
should, on his coming into office, have the nomination of an assistant under-
secretary for the management of business of this description.*
In 1792 the report of the commissioners was submitted to the
secretaries of state, who, after two years' consideration, gave their
ston to the lord president of the council, dated July 1831, the government under-
secretary is referred to as ' the junior undcr-secretary of state for the foreign depart-
ment'. F.O. 300/434.
1
The ten under-seiroturies (together with the dates of Uieir appointment) were:
Charles Culling Smith, 13 December 1809 ; Edward Cooke, 28 February 1812 ; Joseph
Planta, 5 July 1817 ; Lord Francis Conynghani, 0 January 1823 ; Lord Dunglas, 9 June
1828 ; Sir George Shoe, 20 November 1830 ; Hon. W. T. H. Fox Strangways, 15 August
1835; Granville George Leveson Gower, Viscount Loveson, 7 March 1840; Edn-ard
John Stanley, 6 July 1846; Austen Henry Layard, 12 February 1852. (Conyngham
and Stanley obtained seats in the house of commons while they were in office.)
* This assumption is due largely, no doubt, to the fact that Aust and his successors
are described as such in the Foreign Office List from 1853 down to 1901, the first and last
years in which a list of the under-secretaries before 1852 is printed.
1
The marquis of Carmarthen (afterwards duke of Leeds) became foreign secretary
in Pitt's first ministry in December 1783. William Fraser was sole under-secretary
until 1789.
* The Ten Reports of the Commissioners appointed by Act of Parliament to inquire into
Feu, Gratuities, etc., received at Public Offices. Firet Report—Secretaries of State. ParL
Papers (1731-1801), 1792-3, (103), xL
 314 UNDERSECRETARIES OF STATE FOR April

opinion that not less than two efficient under-secretaries in the

home department, two in the foreign department, and one in the
war department, exclusive of a private confidential secretary,
were absolutely necessary for the management of the public
business. And as their particular lines of duty could, if necessary,
be easily discriminated, the secretaries of Btate saw no reason for
making that sort of distinction between the two under-secretaries
which the commissioners had proposed.

Downloaded from http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of New South Wales on August 23, 2015
On the change of a principal secretary of state [they observed] it has fre-
quently but not always happened that the successor has brought with him
into office, one new under-secretary, and has allowed one of the former
under-secretaries to remain. But it must be obvious, that however advan-
tageous it may sometimes be to continue in office a person in habits of con-
fidence, and acquainted with the routine of the public business, circum-
stances may occur which may render it advisable to make a further change.
These recommendations were approved, with the result that by the
order in council of 27 February 1795, of the regulations respecting
the offices of the secretaries of state proposed by the commissioners,
only such were confirmed ' as appear to be approved of by His
Majesty's said Secretaries of State \ x Accordingly, the situation
of the under-secretaries remained the same: both continued to
hold their offices at the pleasure of the secretary of state, and the
latter was to be in no way bound by the appointments of his pre-
decessor.
It follows that only confusions can result from any premature
attempt to distinguish between the offices of the two under-secre-
taries of state for foreign affairs by assigning to each office (rather
than to its holder) business of a definite nature and importance.
For indeed, down to 1822, when Canning succeeded Castlereagh as
secretary of state, the greater burden of responsibility was made to
rest upon one particular under-secretary, not for reasons arising from
the nature of his office, but rather because he enjoyed to a greater
degree than his colleague the confidence of the principal secretary
of state. Thus, Edward Cooke, whom Castlereagh brought with him
to the Foreign Office in 1812, was his personal friend, who accom-
panied him on his most difficult missions and drafted some of his
most important dispatches. The other under-secretary, William
Hamilton, whom Castlereagh inherited from his predecessor,
was not so frequently entrusted with duties outside the routine
work of the Office. In 1817 Cooke retired owing to ill-health and
was succeeded by Joseph Planta, who had earned Castlereagh's
gratitude by his devotion and zeal as private secretary. In May
1
F.O. 360/542. The order in council (in which is incorporated the letter from the
secretaries of state) is printed in full in tho Sixteenth Report, 19 July 1707 ; see p. 300,
u. 3, aapra.
1934 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 1782~1855 315

1820, Hamilton having been compelled (also by ill-health) to give

up hia duties, the third earl of Clanwilliam was appointed to suc-
ceed him ad interim, and when, in February 1822, Hamilton accepted
the mission to Naples, Clanwilliam's appointment was made formal.
In September, however, Castlereagh's death brought Canning to the
Foreign Office, and Clanwilliam resigned. The task of finding a
successor presented some difficulty, but after John Backhouse had
served as acting under-secretary for three months, the final appoint-

Downloaded from http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of New South Wales on August 23, 2015
ment enabled Canning to initiate important and lasting changes in
the distribution of business between the two under-secretaries of
state. Lord Francis Conyngham, appointed under-secretary in
February 1823, took his seat in the house of commons as member
for Donegal in February 1825 (the first under-secretary for foreign
affairs for nearly twenty years to sit in parliament), while Planta,
on the other hand, from being, strictly speaking, as successor to
Cooke, the government under-secretary, became the permanent
officer.1
The intimacy which Planta enjoyed in the counsels of Canning,
the confidence which the latter placed in hia ability and judgement
facilitated the concentration in his hands of the greater part of the
affairs of the Foreign Office. And this process continued apaco
under Planta's successors : by 1861 all matters appertaining to the
discipline of the office had been placed in the hands of the per-
manent under-secretary ; the privileged position he obtained in
questions of finance is evidenced by the rule which Canning had
laid down, that the only person under the secretary of state who
should be charged with the disbursement of secret service money
should be the permanent under-secretary ; and lastly, as the cen-
tury advanced, an increasing share of the diplomatic business came
under his control. During the first half of the century, and even,
it is true, so late as 1860, the countries of the world were, for the
purpose of diplomatic business, fairly evenly distributed between
the departments of the two under-secretaries of state. Neverthe-
less, the government under-secretary, as a factor in British foreign
policy, was being gradually effaced : the countries of the New World
were removed from his control, and, indeed, by 1865, he was left
to superintend the diplomatic business with only twelve countries,
two-thirds of which comprised petty states of central Germany.
Moreover, his eclipse was rendered even more complete by the
peculiar arrangement by which decisions were reached in the
Foreign Office. Briefly, the process was as follows : when

1
Webster, op. cit., possim ; Terapcrley, op. cit., passim; C. S. B. Buckland, ' The
Third Earl of Clanwilliam as Acting Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs',
Notes and Queries (1024), cxlvii. 131. The fact that Backhouse was appointed acting
under-secretary in 1822 when Clamvilliam threw up his duties, seems to have escaped
Professor Tcrupcrley's notice ; sco Treasury to F.O. 0 March 1823. ¥.0. 3C0/434,
31f> UNDERSECRETARIES OF STATE FOR April

dispatches were received at the Foreign Office from a British repre-

sentative in a foreign country, they were sent to the under-secretary
of the division in which that particular country lay ; they would
receive his minutes and would be sent from him direct to the foreign
minister. The latter would come to a decision upon these dispatches
in conjunction with the under-secretary from whom he had received
them ; they would be sent to the other under-secretary, but not
until after the decision had been made. In view of the distribution

Downloaded from http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of New South Wales on August 23, 2015
of countries in 1865, the effect of such an arrangement upon the
position of the government under-secretary is abundantly clear :
outside British relations with twelve central European states, he
had, in fact (unless consulted unofficially by the secretary of state)
no more voice in the conduct of foreign affairs than the lowest clerk
in the office. The permanent under-secretary, on the other hand,
had acquired such an eminent position of authority and importance
that Lord Clarendon in 1870 was prompted to describe that office
as ' a most excellent place, the most interesting place probably in
the Government '.*
A comparison of the rise and fall of their respective salaries
during the first half of the nineteenth century gives an added
significance to the change which was taking place in the status of
the two under-secretaries of state. In 1784 the net income of the
under-secretary in the foreign department amounted (by means
of salary, fees, and gratuities) to £1,079 18s. 8d* In 1795thesystem
of fees and gratuities was superseded and the salary of each of the
two under-secretaries in the foreign department was fixed at
£1,500 per annum. Four years later, on the advice of the secre-
taries of state, this was increased to £2,000 per annum, with a
further addition of £500 to the salary of each under-secretary when
he had completed three years in that office. In 1817, however, in
pursuance of the policy of retrenchment introduced at the close
of the Napoleonic wars, a select committee on finance represented
that the scale of advancement was too rapid, with the result that
an order in'council of 24 July 1817 extended the qualifying period
to seven years for all under-secretaries appointed after that date.
Nevertheless, the measure had no immediate bearing upon the
financial status of the government under-secretary, and from 5 July
1820, Planta (dating his appointment, conveniently enough, from
5 July 1817, just three weeks before the seven years' regulations

1
See Reports on Diplomatic Service in Accounts and Papers, 1801 (450), vi. 1ff.,and
1870 (382), vii. 279ff.; Foreign Office List, 18C0 to 1870.
1
From 1784 to 1789, however, there being a vacancy in one under secretary's office,
the remaining under-secretary, William Fraser, enjoyed the emoluments payable to
both, and thus received a net annual income of £2,159 17». id. ; ¥.0. 95/591 ; Report,
Parliamentary Papers (1731-1801), 1702-3 (103), xl.
 1934 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 1782-1855 317

came into force)1 enjoyed, equally with Hamilton, the length of

service increment of £500.*
After 1822, however, the change which was taking place in the
relative positions of the two under-secretaries of state was very
early reflected in their respective salaries. Owing, it is alleged in
the official return, to the great increase of business in the office, it
was found necessary, in July 1824, to appoint a third under-secretary
in the person of Lord Howard de Walden. Planta's income was

Downloaded from http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of New South Wales on August 23, 2015
not affected, and he continued to draw £2,500 per annum until his
resignation in 1827. Conyngham, on the other hand, who, since
his appointment in January 1823, had been paid at the normal rate
of £2,000, was compelled to accept a fifty per cent, reduction and
to share with Howard de Walden the salary originally intended for
one. Moreover, the same arrangement was renewed when Clanri-
carde was appointed to succeed Conyngham in January 1826. With
Planta's resignation, however, the invidious distinction between
the salaries of the two tinder-secretaries temporarily ceased,3 foi*
in 1822 it had been docided to abolish the increment for length of
service in the case of all under-secretaries appointed after that date.*
Four years later, however, the parity was deliberately and per-
manently destroyed.
On 30 March 1831 the select committee, appointed to inquire
into what reductions could be made in the salaries of offices held
during pleasure by members of either of the two houses of parlia-
ment, presented its report, recommending that the salaries of
all under-secretaries of state should be reduced to £1,500 with an
1
The date of Planta's appointment is uncertain. The list prepared in the Foreign
Office in 1850 (and printed by Haydn) gives the date as 25 July 1817. As this is the day
after the promulgation of the order in council introducing the qualifying period of
soven years for length of service increment, it is necessary, in deference to Planta, to
accept the date, 5 July, supplied by him in a Return to the house of commons in 1821 ;
Ace. d; Papers, 1821 (710), xiv. 366.
• It appears from a statement of Foreign Office expenditure made in 1847, that
£2,500 (salary and increment) by no means represented the total emoluments of each
under-secretary ; on the contrary, they amounted in 1821 to £3,349 17«. Dd. (F.O. 3(56/
367). It probably nrwe3 from the fact that, although from 1705 the under-secretarios
wore no longer entirely dependent for their incomo upon foes and gratuities (which
henceforth wore placed in a general fund for the payment of the Foreign Office salaries,
tho deficiencies of which were to be made up by the Treasury), nevertheless, they
retained certain perquisites. During the second quarter of the century, however,
these were gradually abolished ; for example, in 1831 it was decided that from
5 January of that year, all diplomatic and ' Chancery ' presents on the exchange of
the ratifications of treaties should cease.
• For the case of Backhouse, see p. 318, n. 5, infra.
• Treasury Minute, 8 January 1822. Ace. <b Papers, 1822 (110), xvii. 11. In this
connexion, Castlereagh's refusal to suspend the payment of length of service increments
(which the Treasury had requested him to do while their inquiry was pending) can only
be attributed to his kindly consideration for the financial interests of his staff (Treasury
to F.O. and F.O. to Treasury, 14 April 1821. F.O. 366/429, pp. 148 f.). This trait in
Castlereagh's character is further illustrated by his refusal to suggest reductions in the
salaries of bis staff at tho close of the war (F.O. to Treasury, August 1816. F.O. 366/434.
Cf. Webster, CasUereagh, 1812-15, p. 49, note).
318 UNDERSECRETARIES OF STATE FOR April
addition of £500 after three years' service.1 The Treasury concurred
with the report so far as to suggest to the principal secretaries of
state the expediency of reducing the salaries of one under-secretary
in each of their departments from £2,000 to £1,500 per annum.
With respect to the office of the permanent under-secretary, on the
other hand, the Treasury recommended ' that their appointments
should be distinguished from those which are more exclusively of
a political character and connected with Parliamentary duties '.

Downloaded from http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of New South Wales on August 23, 2015
Accordingly, it was decided, on the one hand, that in view of the
important nature of his office and of the ' most confidential and
responsible ' duties which he was called upon to perform, the exist-
ing salary of £2,000 per annum paid to the permanent under-
secretary should be continued, and on the other hand, that the
salary of the government under-secretary in each department of
state should be reduced to £1,500 per annum from 5 April 1831.2
Palmerston, indeed, endeavoured to safeguard the interests of his
friend, Sir George Shee. Quick to grasp the anomalous position of
the under-secretary, erroneously termed ' Parliamentary ' in the
Treasury minute, he pointed out that as neither of the under-secre-
taries of state in the foreign department (Backhouse and Shee)
was a member of parliament, or could, in the existing distribution
of official appointments, have a seat in the house of commons, it
was to be concluded that no reduction was applicable to either of
the two under-secretaries.* His efforts, however, were of no avail,
and some weeks later the foreign secretary formally concurred in
the proposed reduction in the salary of the ' Junior Under Secretary
of State '.* Moreover, with one exception, the scale laid down in
the Treasury minute of 1831 remained in force for the next twenty-
five years, a material recognition of the increasing priority of the
permanent under-secretary in the business of the Foreign Office.5
1
Ace. <Si Papers, 1830-1 (322), iii. 445 ff. Thereasongiven for this recommendation
was' that the under-secretaries, who habitually remain in office during different changes
of administration and who thus make a profession of official life, may be distinguished
from those who merely appear there for short periods '.
• Treasury Minute, 16 April 1831. F.O. 306/434.
• P.O. to Treasury, 1 July 1831. Ibid. Hon. George Lamb, under-secretary for
home affairs, and Henry Grey, Viscount Howick, under-secretary for war and the
colonies, were members of the house of commons for Dungarvan and Northumberland
respectively.
4
Palmerston to the lord president of the council, July 1831. Ibid.
• The exception was in favour of Backhouse, whose case was a singular one. When
appointed in the summer of 1827 to the office of under-secretary of state. Backhouse
received at the same time, in place of another office which he then held, but the duties
of which were incompatible with those of under-secretary, the appointment of receiver-
general of excise, to be held in conjunction with the office of under-secretary of state.
In completing this arrangement. Canning, who was then first lord of the Treasury,
settled that Backhouse's salary should commence at the rate of the established salary
of an onder-secretary, reduced since 1822 to a maximum of £2,000 ; but that it should
be composed of the full salary of tho office ofreceiver-general,amounting to £1,500 a
year, and of a further sum of £600 to be paid from the funds of the Foreign Office.
Further, Canning's intention appears to have been that at the end of live years'
 1034 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, J782-1S55 31!)

In conclusion, however, it is necessary to observe that as the

authority of tho government undersecretary in the Foreign Offico
diminished, his importance in parliament correspondingly increased.
From 1835 to 1841 when the government under-secretary had no
seat in parliament, Palmoraton was foreign minister and so was
able to defend his own conduct of foreign policy in the house of
commons. But when in 1841 an administration was formed in
which both the principal and the undersecretary of state for foreign

Downloaded from http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of New South Wales on August 23, 2015
affairs (Lord Aberdeen and Viscount Canning respectively) were
members of the house of lords, the problem of defending the govern-
ment's foreign policy in the house of commons became acute. And,
indeed, at a period when British relations were complicated by
events in fields so diverse as China and Spain, Tahiti and Morocco,
the whole burden, in addition to the increasing pressure of parlia-
mentary duties attached to his position as prime minister, fell upon
Sir Robert Peel. In view of the overwhelming amount of work im-
posed upon him, Peel himself appears to have considered whether
it was not preferable for the prime minister to sit in the house of
lords.1 But this was not the solution which worked itself out in
practice during the course of the next half-century. On the con-
trary, in view of the rapidly extending responsibilities of British
foreign policy, it became essential that the government should be
represented in each of the two houses of parliament by a person
closely associated with the Foreign Office. Accordingly, the custom
was generally established that when, as was usually the case down
to the close of tho nineteenth century, tho foreign minister was ;i
member of the house of lords, an under-secretary of state repre-
sented the Foreign Office in the house of commons. When a fourth
department of state was created, the act of 1855, by permitting
three under-secretaries to sit simultaneously in the house of com-
mons,1 did not, it is true, make the representation of the Foreign
Office in that house a legal certainty. Nevertheless, since the
number of under-secretaries of state capable of sitting simultane-
ously in the house of commons rose as the number of departments

service in both offices Backhouse's aggregate emolument should bo augmented from

£2,000 to £2,600 by increasing hiR allowance from the Foreign Office from one quarter to
ono half of the established salary, namely, from £f>00 to £1,000 per annum. When thefive
years elapsed, however, thin arrangement did not take effect, for in 1831 tho new salary
regulations hod come into forco. Accordingly, on behalf of lJackhouxe, who appears to
liave possessed no private source of income by which to supplement his ofliciul salary.
I'almcrston, in 1838, madoTepresentations to the Treasury, as a result of which ordi-rx
were given that tho salary paid to Backhouse from tho Foreign Office funds, while ho
continued to discharge the duties and to receive the salary of receiver-general of excise,
should be increased from £500 to £1,000 per annum. This increase was to take effect from
10 October 1837, and continued until the retirement of Backhouse in 1S42. (Palmerston
to Treasury, 31 January, 1838, T. 1/3247 ; Treasury to F.O. 26 February 1838,
T. 28/93 ; Aberdeen to Peel, 23 and 26 December 1841. Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 40453.)
' John Morley, The Life of IK. E. Gladstone (1903), i. 299 f.
1
See p. 310, n. 1, tupra.
 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 17 82-1 &V, April

of state increased, so the task of allocating offices was simplified,

and it became a comparatively easy matter for the prime minister
to ensure the presence in the house of commons of either the prin-
cipal or the under-secretory of state for foreign affairs.
The first half of the nineteenth century, therefore, had witnessed
a great transformation in the functions of the under-secretaries of
state for foreign affairs. In the first years the government under-
secretary has shared equally with his colleague in the diplomatic

Downloaded from http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of New South Wales on August 23, 2015
business of the Office. Canning explained to Bagot, through his
father-in-law, ' that it was an error to suppose that one under-
secretary's office was less laborious than the other's, as the depart-
ments were so completely separated, that neither could give any
assistance to the other '.* Indeed, we have seen that Cooke and
Planta, both government under-secretaries at certain periods in
their career, played a far more prominent role than the permanent
under-secretary, to whom was assigned the more routine business
of the office. From the time of Canning, however, the relations of
the two under-secretaries underwent a far-reaching change. Diplo-
macy became the special province of the permanent under-secretary,
and he shared with his chief in decisions on most great matters of
foreign policy. The real extent of his influence, too subtle, perhaps,
to be readily apprehended, and consequently, not willingly admitted
by some foreign ministers,2 is, from the very nature of the office,
almost incalculable. But when the full history comes to be written
of British foreign policy during the sixty years which preceded the
war of 1914, the names of Hammond, Tenterden, and Sanderson
can as little be omitted as those of the foreign ministers themselves.
The influence of the government under-secretary, on the other
hand, was in the conduct of British diplomacy during this period
almost eliminated. In parliament, however, his importance was
enhanced, for until Sir Edward Grey became foreign minister in
1905, the under-secretary of state was a link between the Foreign
Office and the house of commons. E. JONES-PARRY.
1
Wellesley Pole to Bagot, 8 August 1807 ; Bagot, op. eit. p. 238 f.
3
See Gaaelee and Tillcy, op. cit. pp. 09 and 127. On this point, the authors accept
too easily, perhaps, the judgements of the foreign minister* themselves.