dents. assumed jurisdiction would nevertheless practically operate to with- Precedraw the supply votes from the beneficial scrutiny of the committee of the whole House. After some further discussion the motion was withdrawn.f In 1857, a similar motion, to refer the army estimates to a select committee, not being seconded, fell to the ground. In 1847, notice being taken that 'a constant increase was going on in the miscellaneous estimates, which required some efficient check,' the government were asked to consent to the appointment of a committee, or other tribunal, to which the said. estimates could be submitted, previously to the House being called upon to vote them in committee of supply.' The first lord of the Treasury (Lord John Russell) admitted that 'there was great room for enquiry, and early in the next session he hoped that a select committee would lay down some principles on which in future it would be safe to proceed.'h Accordingly, on February 22, 1848, Lord John Russell himself moved for the appointment of two committees, one to enquire into the expenditure of the navy, army and ordnance, the other into the miscellaneous expenditure of the country. These committees were restricted in their enquiries within constitutional limits; the government did not propose to abandon their discretion and responsibility in regard to the force required to be maintained in any department of the public service, but, with this proviso, they invited the fullest investigation into the details of the public expenditure, with a view to reductions to be made in future estimates.i Notwithstanding the difference of origin, these two committees were substantially the same as the finance committees which are now annually appointed by the House of Commons, and which have never sought to interfere with the estimates for the ensuing year, as laid upon the table of the House by command of the sovereign. Nevertheless, great public advantages have resulted from the labours of these committees, in the simplification and improvement of the estimates in future years, as well as in the reduction of the public expenditure. On March 11, 1862, another attempt was made to induce the House of Commons to control the estimates, by Lord Robert Montagu, who moved to resolve that, in order to strengthen the check upon the government in regard to issues of money for any public service whatever, in excess of the sums voted by Parliament, as well as to secure the just appropriation of every payment voted by Parliament to its proper account, a committee be appointed, to be annually nominated by the Committee of Selection, for the Ib. v. 96, pp. 1057-1076; v. 101, 'Mir. of Parl. 1835, pp. 588–592. 145, p. 843. Hans. D. v. à Ib. v. 94, p. 185. p. 713. Precedents. Motions for reduc purpose of revising all estimates or accounts laid before Parliament, with instruction to consider of improving the present system of audit, and also to report to the House the exact period of the financial year when it would be desirable that the annual estimates should be presented to Parliament, so as to enable the necessary examination of such estimates or accounts to be completed and reported upon by the said committee before this House proceeds to sanction such estimates, &c., by a vote of payment in supply. This proposal that the estimates should undergo revision by a select committee was strenuously resisted by the government, as cutting at the root of our present political system. Any such committee would either supersede the House, in its duty of examining and pass ing the accounts, or it would supersede the government in its duty of submitting them. It would lead to a transference of the responsi bility of the government for the estimates to an irresponsible body. The motion was negatived, on division, by a large majority. And here it may be suitable to refer to a class of tion of ex- motions which, although they do not concern the estipenditure. mates for the current year, are, nevertheless, intended Precedents. to effect a prospective reduction of the annual estimates, and to express the constitutional opinion of the House of Commons in regard to the increase of the public expenditure. On July 16, 1849, it was moved by Mr. Henley to resolve, that a reduction of ten per cent. be made in all salaries in all the departments of government, at home and abroad. The motion was opposed by the chancellor of the exchequer, who contended that the public servants were not more highly paid than was necessary to their adequate remuneration. After debate, the motion was negatived by a large majority. But on April 12, 1850, on motion of Lord John Russell (the prime minister), a select committee was appointed to enquire into the salaries and emoluments of offices held, during the pleasure of the crown, by members of Parliament, and also into the salaries, fees, and pensions of judicial officers, and into the cost of the diplomatic service. This committee made a valuable report on the J Hans. D. v. 165, pp. 1306-1359. See also General Peel's remarks on question of referring estimates to a select committee, Ib. p. 940. On April 13, 1863, a motion to refer part i. of the civil service estimates (on Public Works) to a select committee was negatived. See a similar case on May 26, 1864. On April 3, 1865, a motion to refer the whole civil ser vice estimates to a select committee was proposed, and withdrawn after remarks from secretary of the Treasury. Hans. D..v. 178, p. 717. duties of official persons of the highest rank, but generally adverse Preceto a reduction of salaries.k On March 10, 1857, Mr. Gladstone moved to resolve that, ' in order to secure to the country that relief from taxation which it justly expects, it is necessary, in the judgment of this House, to revise and further reduce the expenditure of the state.' The House of Commons had, a few days previously, censured the government (which otherwise possessed the confidence of the House) for the conduct of affairs in China, and the government had determined to appeal to the country by a dissolution of Parliament. In order to enable them to carry on the public service until the assembling of a new Parliament, ministers applied to the House of Commons for a 'vote on account,' for four months. Having no objection to this course, and admitting it to be just and customary, Mr. Gladstone was yet of opinion that the proposed estimates were excessive. He accordingly sought, by this motion, to compel the government to re-consider their estimates before the re-assembling of Parliament, and to submit them, with considerable reductions, to the judgment of the new House of Commons. The House did not concur with Mr. Gladstone as to the propriety or expediency of this motion, and it was negatived without a division. On June 3, 1862, Mr. Stansfeld moved to resolve, that the national expenditure is capable of reduction, without compromising the safety, independence, or legitimate influence of the country. In amendment, Lord Palmerston (the prime minister) moved that the House, sensible of the necessity of economy, is at the same time mindful of its obligation to provide for the security of the country at home and the protection of its interests abroad, and that it observes with satisfaction the decrease already effected in the national expenditure, and trusts such further diminution may be made in it as the future state of things may warrant. Besides this amendment, no less than five other amendments, either to Mr. Stansfeld's, or to Lord Palmerston's motion, stood upon the notice paper. One of them (Mr. Walpole's) was regarded by Lord Palmerston as equivalent to a vote of want of confidence ; he therefore suggested that it should have the priority. The members who were about to propose the other amendments agreed to withhold them; but Mr. Walpole declared that he did not intend a vote of censure by his motion, yet, after Lord Palmerston's statement respecting it, he was not prepared to encounter the responsibilities which would be entailed by the success of his amendment, and therefore he would not move it. Lord Palmerston, in justifying his Com. Pap. 1850, v. 15, p. 179. See Treasury Minute of May 20, 1851, recording the steps which have been taken for giving effect to the recom- dents. Votes on account.' beforehand the exact amount required. Nevertheless, they should be strictly limited both as to their amount and object. In two or three instances only between the Revolution and 1735 were unlimited votes of credit given to the ministers of the crown for army or navy purposes. Ever since, when the Commons have granted a vote of credit, they have named a specific sum in the Appropriation Act, and have prescribed the purpose to which it must be applied.' Votes on account' were formerly restricted to occasions of unexpected emergency, arising out of ministerial changes, when it was desirable to place at the disposal of government funds for the public service without specifically appropriating the same to particular items of expenditure. In such cases it is usual to vote a portion only of the yearly estimates, and in the following session to enquire into the expenditure thereof, in order to ascertain that it was duly appropriated to legitimate purposes. When Parliament is about to be dissolved, upon a ministerial crisis, it is obviously improper to call upon the House of Commons to vote either the full amount or all the details of the proposed estimates, and so commit the country to the financial policy of ministers whose fate is about to be determined by a general election. The duty of finally deciding upon these estimates should be reserved for the new House of Commons. Meanwhile the supply of credit should be restricted to such an amount as may be absolutely required for the public service, until the reassembling of Parliament, and the vote on account' should not be regarded as in any degree pledging the House to an approval of the entire estimates." May's Prac. ed. 1883, p. 680. Clode, Mil. Forc. of the Crown, h Hans. D. v. 144, p. 2170. Ib. v. 158, p. 1667. This course was followed, upon pending ministerial changes, in 1841, 1857, and 1859. See May's Prac. ed. 1883, p. 678. of unex Within the last few years, however, the practice of Surrender taking votes on account' has become general. This pended is owing to the introduction of a new rule, making all balance. grants in supply applicable only to payments to be made within the financial year,' and requiring the government to surrender into the exchequer, at the end of the year, all unexpended balances. This change of system was completely effected at the expiration of the financial year terminating on March 31, 1863, when, 'for the first time in our financial history, all the services were required to surrender the balances standing to their credit,' an arrangement which has necessitated an application to Parliament, before the close of the first quarter of the new financial year, for a vote on account,' to meet the ordinary charges accruing therein. But the balances are not surrendered until the Public Accounts Committee have reported upon the various appropriation accounts of the past financial year, and decided what is the right sum to surrender. Meanwhile they are available to meet expenditure of the said year, which has been actually incurred, but which has not yet been brought to account. But this practice is not altogether free from objection. When such a vote is submitted, it is always for one large sum on account of the following civil services;' and although allowable, it is neither usual nor convenient to discuss the items in detail.' On July 10, 1863, on a vote for 3,7817. to complete a large amount voted on account' for civil contingencies, an item of 6,000/. was objected to, and the government consented to its being omitted. But as they could not reduce a smaller sum by a larger, the vote for 3,7817. was withdrawn altogether.m The House is thereby deprived of the opportunity of Com. Pap. 1868–9, v. 35, p. 142. Chanc, of Exch. in Hans. D. v. 170, p. 209. Ib. v. 195, p. 524; v. 210, p. 607. 5th Rep. Come. Pub. Acc. Com. Pap. 1871, v. 11, p. 613. Hans. D. v. 206, p. 1368. |