[268:1] May, 383-89, 471.
[268:2] S.O. 59-61, 63.
[268:3] S.O. 61.
[269:1] May, 398-99.
[269:2] Redlich, 463.
[269:3] S.O. 46-50; May, 371-77.
[270:1] S.O. 49.
[270:2] S.O. 47.
[270:3] May, 374.
[270:4] As in the House itself, the attendance during debate is sometimes small. Complaints are heard of this, and of the practice of fetching members in to take part in divisions. Hans. 4 Ser. XCII., 570.
The divisions, by the way, are taken by roll-call.
[270:5] Hans. 4 Ser. XCII., 562, 566.
[271:1] S.O. 50. _Cf._ Hans. 4 Ser. XCII., 555-75.
[271:2] See the remarks of Gladstone in proposing them in 1882, Hans. 3 Ser. CCLXXV., 145-46.
[271:3] In the sixteen years from 1888 (when these committees were revived) through 1903, 1080 public bills were enacted, of which 109 pa.s.sed through their hands. During the eight years from 1896 to 1903, this was true of 73 bills out of the 446 enacted.
[271:4] From 1888 to 1903, 77 of the 83 government bills referred to a standing committee were enacted; from 1896 to 1906, 48 were so referred, and all but two of them were enacted. From 1888 to 1903, 32 out of 58 private members" bills so referred were enacted; and from 1896 to 1903, 27 out of 41. _Cf._ Return in Com. Papers, 1902, Lx.x.xII., 229, and the Annual Returns for 1901-03.
[272:1] _Cf._ Hans. 4 Ser. XCII., 563, 567.
[272:2] _Cf._ Hans. (1888) 3 Ser. CCCXXIII., 403 _et seq._, 474 _et seq._; (1894) 4 Ser. XXII., 1116 _et seq._, 1487 _et seq._; XXIII., 648 _et seq._, 991 _et seq._, 1589 _et seq._; (1895) x.x.xIII., 822 _et seq._; x.x.xIV., 170 _et seq._
[272:3] This objection was partially met by a provision in regard to the additional members. Hans. 4 Ser. XXIII., 1613; x.x.xIV., 1881.
[273:1] _Cf._ Hans. 4 Ser. CLXXII., pp. lxxix-lx.x.x.
[273:2] A committee to which a bill relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire is referred must comprise all the members from that part of the kingdom. In order to provide chairmen enough, the maximum of the chairmen"s panel was raised from six to eight.
[274:1] May, 437, note 1.
[274:2] S.O. 11.
[274:3] S.O. 31. This is also true when a bill is brought from the Lords.
[274:4] S.O. 31.
[274:5] _Cf._ Hans. 4 Ser. CLVII., 744.
[275:1] Until 1888 the form of the motion was "that that question be now put," and the mover voted in the negative; but after the closure was introduced with a motion in these same words, the previous question was changed, and put in the form "that that question not be now put." May, 269. If under either form the House decided in favour of putting the question, the vote upon the second reading was taken without further debate. May, _Ibid._ But as the previous question was itself subject to a discussion which might cover the principles of the bill, it did not have the effect of cutting off debate. (_Cf._ Report of Com. on Business of the House. Com. Papers, 1871, IX., 1, Qs. 54-55.)
[275:2] May, 446.
[275:3] By S.O. 34, committees of the whole are instructed to make such amendments, relevant to the bill, as they think fit. The object of a special instruction is merely to empower the committee to make amendments, within the general scope and framework of the bill, which it would not possess under the standing order. Ilbert, "Manual," ---- 175-76.
[275:4] S.O. 51. Adopted in 1888.
[276:1] S.O. 39.
[276:2] S.O. 50.
[276:3] _Cf._ S.O. 38-41. Unless a motion is made to recommit, the bill is considered on report, when reached, without question put. S.O. 40.
[277:1] Except that the third reading often follows immediately upon the report stage. May, 472.
[277:2] May, 487. In the Lords this requires a suspension of the rules.
Some kinds of bills are subject to special forms of procedure which it seems hardly necessary to mention. A bill for the rest.i.tution of honours begins in the Lords, and in the Commons is referred to a select committee which takes the place of a Committee of the Whole. A bill for a general pardon originates with the Crown, and is read only once in each House. May, 435-36.
[277:3] May, 479; Ilbert, "Manual," -- 209.
[277:4] May, 412-16; Ilbert, -- 250 note.
CHAPTER XIV
PROCEDURE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
_Money Bills and Accounts_
The procedure in the case of financial measures differs in important respects from that followed in pa.s.sing other bills. It will be remembered that, with some exceptions already described, all the national revenues are first paid into the Consolidated Fund, and then drawn out of it to meet the expenditures of the government. The financial work of Parliament, like that of the administration, turns, therefore, upon the processes of getting money into and out of that fund. The second process comes first in the order of parliamentary business, and its nature is fixed by two standing orders, which date from the early years of the eighteenth century. One of them, adopted in 1707, provides that the House will not proceed upon any pet.i.tion or motion for granting money but in Committee of the Whole House;[279:1]
the other, that it will not receive any pet.i.tion, or proceed upon any motion, for a grant or charge upon the public revenue unless recommended from the Crown.[279:2]
[Sidenote: The Rule that Appropriations Require Consent of the Crown.]
This last rule, first adopted by a resolution in 1706, and made a standing order in 1713,[279:3] was designed to prevent improvident expenditure on private initiative. It has proved not only an invaluable protection to the Treasury, but a bulwark for the authority of the ministry.[280:1] Its importance has been so well recognised that it has been embodied in the fundamental laws of the self-governing colonies;[280:2] while some foreign countries, like France and Italy, that have copied the forms of parliamentary government, without always perceiving the foundation on which they rest, have suffered not a little from its absence.[280:3]
Even in England the rule has been at times evaded. About the middle of the last century, it was the habit to bring in bills involving the expenditure of public funds, and avoid a violation of the rule by inserting a clause that the expenses incurred should be "defrayed out of moneys to be hereafter voted by Parliament." But a vote in favour of such a bill was clearly an expression of opinion that well-nigh compelled the ministers to include the expense in their next estimates.
This practice was stopped in 1866 by changing the standing order so as to provide that the House will not "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."[280:4] The change, however, does not absolutely prevent the House from forcing the hands of the government. A resolution can be pa.s.sed in abstract and general terms in favour of a certain kind of expenditure, the construction of harbours of refuge, for example; or an address to the Crown can be adopted asking for an expenditure, and promising "that this House will make good the same," a procedure followed in erecting statues on the death of great leaders of the House.[281:1]
As late as 1877 Mr. Gladstone lamented the loss of financial control by the Crown, complaining that, by addresses, resolutions, and even bills, the House pledged itself to expenditure for local claims or the interests of cla.s.ses and individuals, and that the government was morally bound to redeem the pledges. This he thought was carried so far as to be a great public mischief.[281:2] Whether such a statement was an exaggeration at that time or not, it would hardly be repeated now; for on the one hand the control of the cabinet over the House, and on the other the obstacles encountered by private members in pa.s.sing measures, have increased so much that it is very difficult, without the help of the Treasury Bench, to get the House to adopt anything to which there is serious opposition.
[Sidenote: The Rule Prevents Increase of the Estimates.]
Although in terms the rule applies only to a motion for making a grant, it has been construed to cover any amendment for increasing a grant beyond the amount recommended from the Crown,[281:3]--an extension certainly needed to protect both the Treasury and the authority of the ministers. When, therefore, the minister moves that a sum of money be granted for a definite purpose, no amendment is in order either to increase that sum or to alter its destination.[281:4] But the rule does not forbid a reduction. It follows that if any member deems the sum named too small, his only course is to move to reduce it in order to draw attention to its insufficiency. Reductions of one hundred pounds are, in fact, constantly moved to make an occasion for discussing some grievance connected with the service in question, and they afford a ready means of protest, free from peril to the Treasury.[282:1]