to expect an economical administration of the public funds. These considerations were brought under the notice of the House of Commons by a private member (Mr. Ayrton) on May 16, 1862, when, after a short debate upon the subject, the chancellor of the exchequer promised that it should receive the attention of government, and that hereafter a committee should be appointed to review the whole question, and to recommend rules to remedy the evils arising from this objectionable practice." The attention of the House was again directed to the injurious consequences of this practice in a speech of the chancellor of the exchequer, on May 22, 1865, in regard to a proposition emanating from a private member, to transfer an annual expenditure of upwards of two millions on behalf of the poor, from local to public revenues, and to provide that this enormous amount should be thenceforth defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament,' instead of being chargeable upon parochial poor rates." 6 previous the crown bills or No such committee having been proposed, the subject was again brought up by Mr. Ayrton, on March 20, 1866. After adverting to the consequences which had New standing arisen from the introduction of this novel and uncon- orders to stitutional practice, he proposed-in the interest of require the economy, and in order that the whole responsibility of consent of increasing the public expenditure should be thrown to such upon her Majesty's ministers'-that 'The standing motions order of June 25, 1852, relating to applications for public money, be repealed, and, in lieu thereof, that this House will receive no petition for any sum relating to public service, or proceed upon any motion for a grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the consolidated fund, or out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, unless recommended from the crown'; and that the further standing order of the same date, relating to public aids or charges upon the m Hans. D. v. 166, pp. 1839-1848. Gladstone's speech, Ib. v. 181, p. " Ib. v. 179, pp. 665-696. Mr. 1132. dents. of the House of Lords, a copy of whose report had been laid before this House was highly reprehensible, and calculated to throw discredit on the administration of the high offices of state,' was moved by Mr. Hunt: to this an amendment (of which no notice had been given) was proposed by the lord advocate, acquitting the lord chancellor from all charge except that of haste and want of caution in granting a pension to Mr. Wilde, but declaring the opinion of the House that some further check should be placed by law upon the grant of pensions to the holders of legal offices. Previous to the commencement of the debate, Mr. Bouverie had given notice that he should move, as an amendment to the main motion, to resolve, that this House, having considered the report of the committee on the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, and the evidence, &c., are of opinion that, while the evidence discloses the existence of corrupt practices with reference to the appointment of P. R. Welch to the office of registrar of the said court, they are satisfied that no imputation can fairly be made against the lord chancellor with regard to this appointment; but that such evidence and also that taken before the Lords' committee on the circumstances connected with the resignation by Mr. Edmunds of the offices held by him, 'show a laxity of practice and a want of caution with regard to the public interests on the part of the lord chancellor in sanctioning the grant of retiring pensions to public officers against whom grave charges were pending, which, in the opinion of this House, are calculated to discredit the administration of his great office.' The lord advocate's amendment was first proposed; but, although Mr. Bouverie's amendment was not technically before the House and could not be discussed until it should be moved, its terms were known, and generally preferred by those who took part in the debate, including Mr. Hunt, the mover of the main motion. The question,' that the words proposed to be left out [i.e. Mr. Hunt's motion] stand part of the question,' was therefore put and negatived without a division. On the question that the lord advocate's amendment be then added, Lord Palmerston (the premier) moved, that the debate be now adjourned. This was negatived on division by a majority of 14. Lord Palmerston thereupon agreed to accept this division as conclusive in favour of Mr. Bouverie's amendment. The lord advocate's amendment was accordingly put and negatived, and then Mr. he might be first heard, by counsel, successful attempt to induce the House of Lords to re-open the question, see Law Mag. N. S. v. 28, p. 374. Com. Pap. 1872, v. 5, p. 195, &c. Hans. D. v. 216, p. 963; v. 220, p. 1500. • Hans. D. v. 180, pp. 1092, 1117. dents. Bouverie's amendment was agreed to without a further division. PreceOn the following day, Lord Palmerston announced that, owing to this vote, Lord Chancellor Westbury had tendered his resignation, which had been accepted, and that he would merely retain the seals for a few days for the convenience of public business. On July 5, the lord chancellor informed the House of Lords of his resignation. He added that, had he followed his own judgment, he would have retired from office when the charges were first raised against him, as he felt that the holder of the Great Seal ought never to be in the position of an accused person. But he had been dissuaded from this step by the prime minister, who said it would not do to admit this as a principle of public conduct, for the consequence would be that whoever brought up an accusation would at once succeed in driving the lord chancellor from office. Since then he had repeatedly pressed his resignation upon Lord Palmerston, but without satisfying him that the time had come when it should be accepted, until after the vote of the House of Commons on July 3, which had determined him no longer to consent to retain office.1 In the session of 1866 an Act was passed requiring the lord chancellor to transmit to the lords of the treasury all applications for superannuation allowances on retirement of which he may approve, from any officer connected with the court of chancery, or in bankruptcy or lunacy, or any of the superior courts of common law, and empowering the treasury to decide thereon. This statute is intended to take away from the lord chancellor the absolute right which he had hitherto enjoyed, and to give to the treasury the power of determining upon the report of the lord chancellor the amount of pension to which any such officer is entitled by law upon his retirement.k On July 4, 1873, a resolution was carried, in the House of Commons, on division (against the Government) in favour of redressing the present inadequate scale of salaries of the civil servants in Ireland. Whereupon ministers undertook to appoint a departmental committee to enquire into this matter.1 On May 12, 1874, the House of Commons was moved to appoint a select committee to consider the salaries, &c., of the officers of the two Houses of Parliament, with a view to their being more equitably apportioned. The mover pointed out that salaries in the Hans. D. p. 1163. Ib. p. 1174. On Feb, 13, 1866, the Attorney-General informed the House that, in accordance with the recommendation of the Leeds Bankruptcy Court Committee in the previous session, criminal informations had been filed against Mr. Welch and Precedents. Lords offices were relatively much higher than in the Commons offices. But the chancellor of the exchequer deprecated the motion as an objectionable interference with the discretion of the House of Lords, and the motion was negatived.m On June 14, 1877, the attention of the House of Lords was called to a hardship resulting from the transfer of Mr. W. Woods from the treasury to the colonial office, whereby, through no fault of his own, his pecuniary interests had been injuriously affected. The colonial secretary agreed to lay before the House papers on this matter; but severely censured Mr. Woods for printing and circulating amongst members certain confidential minutes in relation to his case." In Hans, D. v. 219, p. 184. "Ib. v. 234, p. 1753. straint im of Com them The House of Commons, in forbidding, by their Wise restanding orders and uniform practice interpreting the posed by same, the reception of petitions for pecuniary aid, and the House the presentation of reports from select committees re- mons upon commending the expenditure of public money, have selves. voluntarily assumed a restraint which goes beyond the positive obligation of the constitutional rule that requires all grants of money by Parliament to be made only upon the application of the crown. Nevertheless, they have wisely imposed upon themselves this restriction, in order to guard against importunate demands. from without, and as a check upon the too easy liberality of their own members. The responsibility of recommending applications for pecuniary redress or relief to the consideration of Parliament should rest solely upon the executive government, who are strictly accountable for every item of public expenditure, whose especial duty it is, in the interest of the taxpayer, to oppose all unnecessary outlay, and who possess peculiar facilities for investigating into the merits of all pecuniary claims. And it is only a waste of time to encourage premature debates in Parliament upon questions involving a grant of money, whether for public or private purposes, before the attention of government has been directed to the merits of the application. By a ruling of the Speaker of the House of Assembly of the Cape of Good Hope, on June 22, 1882, it was decided that a select committee cannot recommend a specific grant of land, any more than a grant of public money, without the recommendation of the crown. Resoluaddress of tion or Should any case arise wherein it may appear to be the duty of the House to point out to the government public charges which ought to be incurred, they have the House still undoubted authority to do so, either by the Clode, Mil. Forces of the Crown, v. 2, p. 186. in favour of a par ticular expenditure. |