Final state ment of revenue suing year. not be allowed the latitude practised on going into Committees of Supply and of Ways and Means. But this rule does not preclude a member from making observations upon the general conduct of public business or from bringing a question of foreign or domestic policy before the House, upon the motion for going into committee on this Bill, or upon the second or third reading, if it be a question that arises out' of any of the votes thereby appropriated." In 1863 the chancellor of the exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) introduced the practice of submitting to the estimated House, upon the third reading of the Appropriation and ex- Bill, a rectified statement of the estimated revenue and penditure expenditure for the ensuing year. He pointed out the for enalterations which had been made in the original estimates since they had been introduced, in consequence of certain items of revenue which had been asked for by government not having been granted by the House; and noticed the effect of certain items of expenditure which had been authorised pursuant to supplemental estimates upon the general balance, as stated on the opening of the budget.i In 1864 Mr. Gladstone made a similar statement, upon the motion for going into committee on the Appropriation Bill; but not in 1865. On July 23, 1866, Mr. Disraeli informed the House of the altered position of the public finances since the budget of his predecessor in office had been submitted. But these have been exceptional cases; as a rule it is now admitted that the government should make their budget statement as explicit and accurate as possible, and not so as to need subsequent rectification.* 8 Hans. D. v. 143, pp. 560, 641; Ib. v. 180, p. 836. h Ib. v. 143, p. 643; v. 176, p. 1859. Ib. v. 189, p. 1526; v. 213, pp. 644, 709; v. 226, pp. 652-683, 778; v. 231, pp. 821, 1119, 1158. Ib. v. 172, p. 1268. Ib. v. 176, p. 1857. * Sir S. Northcote and Mr. Gladstone in Hans. D. v. 226, pp. 513, 522. ation Bill On account of the formal character of the Appro- Appropri priation Bill, it had been customary to abstain from to be printing it for the use of members. But as complaints printed. were made of alterations in the wording of the Bill having been occasionally made which were unknown. to members generally, it was resolved, on March 24, 1863, that henceforth a sufficient number of copies of all Appropriation Bills should be printed, and delivered to members applying for the same, in time for consideration before the committal of such Bills. In 1865, the Appropriation Bill was presented to the House in a much improved shape." In 1869, the attention of the House was directed by a private member to an alteration in the Appropriation Bill, empowering the Treasury to borrow on the credit of the same,' from any quarter they might think fit, instead of, as in all previous Appropriation Bills, from the Bank of England' only " While the concurrence of the Lords is necessary to every Bill of Supply, it has been customary of late years for such measures to be agreed to by the House of Lords without amendment or even debate." sented by the for the Speaker assent. When the Appropriation Bill has passed both To be preHouses, and is ready for the royal assent, it is returned into the charge of the Commons until the time appointed for the prorogation of Parliament, when it is royal carried by the Speaker to the bar of the House of Peers, and there received by the clerk of the Parliament, for the royal assent. When the sovereign is present in person, the Speaker prefaces the delivery of the Money Bills with a short speech. The main Speech criterion by which the topics of these speeches have a Speaker been selected appears to have been the political import- on preance of the measures which have employed the attention Money of the House of Commons during the preceding session, Hans. D. v. 169, pp. 730, 1863. m 1b. v. 180, p. 717. " Ib. v. 198, pp. 1146, 1282. senting Bills. Presenta tion of money bills. unlimited by any consideration of their progress or their failure.' Even the peculiar privilege and concern of the House of Commons' has been noticed in such addresses.P Referring to the defence made by Mr. Speaker Abbott, in 1813, of one of such speeches, Sir Erskine May characterised it as an act of indiscretion, if not disorder, which placed him in the awkward position of defending himself, in the chair, from a proposed vote of censure. From this embarrassment he was delivered by the kindness of his friends, and the good feeling of the House, rather than by the completeness of his own defence.' On one occasion some observations of Sir Fletcher Norton, in his speech on presenting the Supply Bill, became the subject of remark and complaint in the House of Commons, on account of their uncourtly style; but his friend Mr. Fox, having come to the rescue, Sir Fletcher was formally thanked by the House for his speech. At the close of the Speaker's address, the Money Bills are tendered for the royal assent, which they receive before any of the other Bills awaiting the royal sanction, and in a peculiar form of words, which acknowledge the supply to be the free gift of the Commons." On the first day of the Session of 1873, the Speaker of the Assembly of South Australia presented to the House a formal protest against the action of the ministry, on the closing day of the previous session, in interfering to prevent him from presenting to the governor the customary Money Bills for the royal assent.t Any deviation from the constitutional rule of parliamentary appropriation of supplies granted for the public service is to be regarded with great jealousy. credit. Note the proceedings had, in both Houses, when at a period of public emergency, in 1734, the Commons were induced to empower the crown to apply out of the aids of the year such sums as the exigency of public affairs might require. The Act 7 Geo. II. c. 12, § 12, containing this provision, was protested against by the House of Lords, and is censured by Hatsell as a measure entirely subversive of the rules of Parliament in the grant of supplies." Nevertheless it will sometimes occur—as when a ministerial crisis has necessitated a speedy dissolution of Parliament, or when military operations on a large scale Votes of are about to be undertaken for the defence of the empire, or the prosecution of a foreign war-that it is deemed expedient to entrust the government with means for carrying on the public service, for a limited period, by votes of credit for large sums, instead of by specific appropriations for the several branches of public expenditure, as in the case of the ordinary supplies. But this proceeding is only justifiable upon occasions of great and unforeseen emergency, which do not admit of delay; or which may render it inexpedient for the House to commit itself to the details of expenditure included in the estimates prepared by an existing ministry whose tenure of office has been condemned. It is incumbent upon the House, under such circumstances, to limit the supply of credit to the bare necessity of the state, for the period which must elapse before the reassembling of Parliament; and to require the sums so granted to be properly accounted for at the earliest possible period." But whether the supplies are voted in large sums or in detail, it is equally necessary that they should be included in an Act of Appropriation, whereby the sanction of the three branches of the legislature is given to the expenditure of the money voted by the House of Commons. In 1784 a case occurred which it was feared would have led to Whether supply is bloc or in voted en detail, an Appropri ation Act is equally necessary, No Appropriation Act in 1784. Or in 1807. serious consequences. The prime minister, Mr. Pitt, was in a minority in the House of Commons, and it was well known that he was only waiting for the supplies in order to dissolve Parliament. The estimates had passed through the Committee of Supply, when, on January 12, the House of Commons resolved that any public officer who, in reliance upon the votes in supply, should cause to be paid any sums of money for the public service, after the prorogation of Parliament, and without the express authority of an Act of Appropriation, would be guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor, a daring breach of a public trust, derogatory to the fundamental privileges of Parliament, and subversive of the constitution." Nevertheless, the prorogation and dissolution of Parliament took place before the passing of the Appropriation Act. The new House of Commons was favourable to Mr. Pitt's administration, and it appearing, by returns furnished to the House, that ministers had abstained from using any moneys not actually granted by law, but such as the exigencies of the state imperatively required, no further proceedings were had upon the matter.w The supplies in question were however re-voted in the next session, and included in the Appropriation Act 24 Geo. III. Sess. 2, c. 44. There have been only one or two other instances since the Revolution of the prorogation of Parliament before an Act of Appropriation had been passed. One took place in 1807, when a new Parliament which had been in existence only about four months was dissolved, in the midst of the session, for the purpose of strengthening the government by an appeal to the country on the question of the Roman Catholic claims. On this occasion the ordinary supplies had been voted by the House of Commons, but the Irish Money Bills had not been passed,' and 'none of the sums which had been voted for the public service were appropriated, for no Appropriation Act had been passed.' The dissolution of Parliament under these circumstances was severely commented upon by constitutional authorities in the new Parliament. The chancellor of the exchequer, in defending the course pursued by ministers, declared that during this interval there had been no irregular issue of public money, for that the public expenditure had been maintained out of the sums appropriated by Parliament;' clauses of appropriation having been inserted in certain Bills passed in the previous session, although there had been no general Appropriation Act. 'In the issues that had taken place, therefore, the government had acted according to law, and under the authority of Parliament.' On the death of 3 Hatsell, 206-209. See the comments and explanations of Mr. Perceval, chancellor of the ex chequer in 1807, on this case. Parl. y lb. p. 631. |