Precedents. communicated to Parliament. Meanwhile another attempt was made, on May 8, 1868, to induce the House of Commons to interfere to suspend these works until after further enquiry, but it proved unsuccessful.e But in 1869 an Act was passed granting a final sum to complete works in progress of construction, and authorising the abandonment of works already sanctioned by Parliament which had not been yet commenced. In 1882, after nearly the whole sum authorised to be borrowed had been raised, the Fortification Acts were repealed, and a small unexpended balance repaid to the National Debt Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of 45 & 46 Vict. c. 72, sec. 20. Select mittees questions II. PRACTICE OF PARLIAMENT IN THE APPOINTMENT OF Of late years it has become a frequent practice in both Houses of Parliament to appoint select comon public mittees to take evidence, and report upon important public questions, upon which precise information is needed, with a view to legislation." It is also desirable, and in accordance with constitutional practice, that select committees should be appointed, from time to time, to examine into the constitution and management of the various departments of state. But Parliament is sometimes invited to institute enquiries, by a select committee, into matters which are strictly within the province of the executive government to determine; a proceeding which tends to shift the labour and responsibility of administrative functions more and more from those to whom it properly belongs; and to increase, in equal proportion, the power and influence of the House of Commons in details of government. Committees of 1613. And see post, v. 2. See the objections taken to the appointment of a committee of enquiry into the existence and best means of suppressing unlawful combinations in Ireland, which neverthep. less was agreed to. But the order Act 32 & 33 Vict. c. 76; and Hans. D. v. 214, p. 1116. Com mittees. enquiry, however, ought not to be appointed to con- Select sider questions of principle, upon which the House has not yet agreed to legislate. Such questions should be reserved for discussion by the House itself. It is only when a question is open, that it is suitable for enquiry by a select committee.j When restricted in their enquiries within constitutional limits, select committees are often very serviceable, in bringing members to a common agreement upon great public questions upon which legislation, founded upon an impartial investigation of facts, is necessary. Nothing is more remarkable than the tender forbearance with which the House of Commons treats its own select committees ; though, if their proceedings were strictly canvassed, there are perhaps few parts of our system of government which can less support criticism. As a means of enquiry and investigation, they are of the highest value, and they are constantly carrying on, with great success, the political education of Parliament and of the nation : but when they strain at executive authority they generally fail, nor can their judicial impartiality (except in peculiar cases) be entirely relied on.1 Such committees are usually appointed either at the suggestion or with the direct approval of the government, and are composed of a fair proportion of leading men from both sides of the House, including members of the existing and of former administrations, in order that, as a general rule, the balance of parties may be maintained, and the feeling of the House represented thereon.TM In the appointment of select committees, it of reference was afterwards discharged, and another order substituted, more in accordance with constitutional precedent. See Com. J. 1871, pp. 68, 73. In regard to the appointment of committees of enquiry into misconduct or abuses in ministerial departments, see post, v. 2. J Mr. Forster and Sir M. H.Beach, Hans. D. v. 233, pp. 1753, 1825. * See Mr. Disraeli, on this point, in Hans. D. v. 161, pp. 1866– 1868; by Mr. Cobden, Ib. v. 176, p. 1908; by Mr. Lowe, Ib. v. 182, p. 158. 1 Ed. Rev. v. 108, p. 290. For a humorous description of the manner in which such committees are sometimes organised, extracted from the Sat. Rev., see Fischel, p. 470. Hans. D. v. 202, p. 596. Select Committees is the usage that a majority of one should be given to that side which possesses the majority in the House itself. But it is not customary that minute attention. should be paid to the representation of the three kingdoms.'" Men should be selected to serve on public committees who, from their abilities, experience, or the special interests they represent, are peculiarly qualified for such service.° Very few committees are appointed without a conference between their principal promoters and the government. If intended to investigate matters of great importance, the leaders of different parties in the House should also be consulted by the mover, before he selects the members to serve thereon. The names of the proposed committeemen are usually arranged in friendly conversation out of the House, and with the assistance of 'the whips' on both sides. If this cannot be done, the House must decide, in some impartial manner, of whom the committee shall consist.P When the conduct of a minister or other official is in question, the government should take as little part as possible in the matter, and in the nomination of the committee should be guided by the general feelings of the House. And when the character of a member of the House is concerned in the proposed enquiry, it is customary for the committee to be selected through the intervention of an intermediate body." 6 As a rule, strong partisans on each side are knowingly and advisedly chosen, in order that truth might be elicited from the conflict of opposite and, it might be, interested opinions. If such committees consisted wholly of impartial men, their investigations would be most unsatisfactory.' After taking evidence from every available source, n Mr. Gladstone, Hans. D. v. 199, p. 795; v. 204, p. 1112; v. 206, p. 1117; v. 209, p. 1120. • lb. v. 195, p. 124. P Disraeli, Hans. D. v. 137, pp. 1613, 1620, 1691. Ib. v. 187, p. 1498; v. 227, p. 2018; v. 234, p. 187. 4 Gladstore, Ib. v. 216, p. 1214. 216, p. 1449. Sec. Sir G. C. Lewis, Hans. D. v. 162, p. 1012; and see Ib. v. 187, p. 1364. But in 1872 it was considered desirable to exclude any direct representation of railway companies upon a Sel. Com. which had to enquire into the subject of the Amalgamation of Railway Companies. Ib. v. 209, p. 944. Com the committee reports the same to the House, generally. Select with observations embodying practical suggestions, mittees. which they submit for the consideration of the government. It then becomes the duty of the administration. to consider these propositions, to subject them in turn to careful scrutiny-and, if necessary, to appoint either a royal commission, or a departmental committee of their own, to make further enquiries-in order to enable the government to decide, upon their own responsibility, to what extent, and in what way, the proposed reforms can be carried out, in conformity with the general principles upon which the public service is conducted." their en-, quiries. As a general rule, it is not customary to submit to Result of the House motions for concurrence in the reports of such select committees, or any other resolutions founded thereupon. It is usual to leave with the government the initiation of any measures, be they legislative or administrative, that may be required to carry out the recommendations of a public committee. Sometimes, however, a member of the committee (usually the chairman) submits to the House an abstract resolution on the matter either in the same," or in some succeeding session, in order to enforce the recommendations of the committee, or to elicit the views of the House upon the subject. In illustration of the principles upon which it is usual to appoint public committees, of the proceedings * Hans. D. v. 235, pp. 1478, 1725. Rep. Com. Diplomatic Service, Com. Pap. 1870, vol. 7, pp. 420, 421. Ev. 1767-1770. Ib. 2nd Rep. 1871, v. 7, p. 359. Hans. D. v. 161, pp. 496, 817: Ib. v. 168, pp. 626-633; v. 173, p. 1239; v. 235, p. 1478. In 1850 the Commons addressed the crown to appoint a commission to follow up certain enquiries instituted by a Sel. Come. Com. J. v. 105, p. 85. Hans. D. v. 201, p. 431; v. 203, Select Com mittees. Prece dents. Opening letters at Postoffice. consequent upon their labours, and of the conduct of government in respect to the same, the following cases may be consulted: On June 14, 1844, Mr. Duncombe presented a petition to the House of Commons from four persons, of whom Joseph Mazzini, the well-known Italian refugee, was one, complaining that their letters had been detained at the London post-office, broken open, and read. The home secretary (Sir James Graham) explained that Mazzini's letters only had been opened; and that this had been done by his express authority, under a warrant issued in conformity to an Act of Parliament. On June 24, Mr. Duncombe moved for a select committee to enquire into the operations of the Post-office Department in such cases. The motion was successfully opposed by government, on the ground that they had merely exercised a right which had been constantly resorted to by their predecessors in office, and which had proved advantageous to the public interest, in the prevention and detection of crime. But on July 2, Mr. Duncombe again moved for a committee of enquiry; in amendment to which Sir James Graham himself proposed the appointment of a secret committee, to investigate the law in regard to the opening of letters, and the mode of its exercise-which was agreed to by the House. On July 4 a similar committee was appointed by the House of Lords. These committees were composed of some of the most eminent and impartial men in Parliament. A motion to include Mr. Duncombe upon the Commons' committee was negatived upon division. Mr. Duncombe afterwards complained to the House, that while he had been invited to attend the committee to prefer his complaint against the home secretary, and to give in a list of witnesses in support of the same, he was not permitted to be present himself during the examination of witnesses. He then moved that it be an instruction to the committee to allow him to attend, and produce and examine witnesses in support of the case of the petitioners: but the motion was negatived. A motion to add Mr. Duncombe to the committee was ruled out of order by the Speaker, on the ground that a similar motion had been already negatived by the House. After due invesgation, these committees reported. They entirely exonerated Sir James Graham from blame in the discharge of his duty, and gave full particulars of the origin and exercise of the power of opening letters entrusted by statute to the secretary of state. They recommended no alteration of the law on this subject. A few days afterwards, Lord Radnor introduced into the House of Lords a Bill to y Hans. D. v. 76, p. 257. • Com. Pap. 1844, v. 14, pp. 501, 505. |