Talk:1757 caretaker ministry

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Holdernesse

Was he considered to be holding a single office of "Secretary of State" or to be holding both? I don't think it wise to list people as a single office holder if they were actually holding multiple jobs. Timrollpickering 18:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In England/Great Britain/UK there was and is a single office of Secretary of State, which normally has multiple holders. Although it is customary to allocate particular responsibilities to a specific office holder any Secretary of State can legally perform all the functions of the office and carry out the duties of any of the other departmental Secretaries of State. In 1757, when there were normally two Secretaries of State whose responsibilities were divided geographically rather than by function as they are today, it is reasonable to regard a single Secretary of State as "the" Secretary of State rather than the holder of two departmental offices. --Gary J 09:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been the constitutional position, but by the mid 18th century it was increasingly the case that the Northern and Southern Departments were seen as posts in their own right. On Robert Darcy, 4th Earl of Holderness there is no single "Secretary of State" listed in the position boxes, and similarly both Secretary of State for the Southern Department and Secretary of State for the Northern Department don't contain gaps for when one man held both posts. Also as Secretary of State doesn't contain a list of British office holders up to 1660, let alone any single ones later, it seems odd to link to it. I've modified the table to reflect the pages on both the individual and offices. Timrollpickering 14:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept what has been done. I am strictly right, but I accept that the custom of regarding the Secretaryship of State for different departments as distinct offices, had been established by 1756. --Gary J (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]