No, it was Meighen who held all the positions. He held all the positions in order to avoid the problem of having to have, basically, his entire front bench resign. That piece of legislation did result, nonetheless, in him losing his parliamentary majority. He was then defeated almost immediately by King and the Liberals because, having taken government, he could no longer command the majority he had, ironically, at his command in opposition—if you follow that—his own party, plus a series of minor parties supporting him. That was the cause of his downfall. Then King campaigned in the 1926 election, arguing that Arthur Meighen was an incipient dictator because he held all the cabinet posts and subsequently abolished the legislation when he was returned to power.
If I may add another historical piece of trivia, this is my chance to revise a bit of incorrect history that is widely, but incorrectly, held by Canadians. Mackenzie King did not win the 1926 election, as people think. What happened was he won the majority of seats in the 1926 election. It's a shame Elizabeth May isn't here for this part of the discussion. He actually got fewer votes than the Conservatives in that election, but he won more seats due to one of the most bizarre accidents of the first-past-the-post system, which is that, in the Province of Manitoba, there were five parties that were competitive. The Conservatives won more votes than any of the other parties did but did not win more votes than another party in any of the individual ridings, and as a result won zero seats. Based on that, and a somewhat less dramatic version of the same thing that happened in Quebec, the Conservatives were out of power, despite the fact that they had won more votes than the Liberals had. The irony of this is not so much...because these accidents happen from time to time...but it's that our Canadian mythology has been that the 1926 election was all about rejecting the power of the Governor General, and how Canadians endorsed Mackenzie King's view of things. This was emphatically not so. That part is a mythology that needs to be corrected. I think our path to independence took a different course than the one we now remember, at least in that particular incident.
Thanks for letting me intervene.