Departmental com mittees. for Ireland opposed the motion, but admitted that they were not in a position to endorse all that had been done by the commissioners. It was negatived on division. In 1873, Mr. Bouverie, in the House of Commons, gave notice of motion which was equivalent to a direct vote of censure upon the commissioners for their proceedings in this matter. The quasi-independent position of the commissioners rendered them to some extent beyond ministerial control in their ordinary proceedings, so that the government preferred to ask the House to appoint a committee of enquiry into their conduct in the O'Keefe case, to assuming themselves entire responsibility in the matter. Accordingly on May 15, 1873, on motion of the secretary for Ireland, this select committee was appointed, with an understanding that the commissioners should be heard before it, in their own defence. On June 18, the committee reported, minutes of evidence only. Whereupon Mr. Bouverie renewed his notice for a vote of censure on the commissioners. But on July 11, Mr. Gladstone gave such satisfactory assurances in regard to the intended action of government in this matter, that he agreed to refrain from bringing forward his intended motion." Nevertheless, on June 2, 1874, a vote of censure was moved, in reference to the conduct of the commissioners in this matter. To this, the secretary for Ireland moved an amendment, to the effect that, without expressing any approval of the original conduct of the commissioners, since their adoption of a new rule on the subject 'there does not at present exist any sufficient ground for the interference of Parliament.' The amendment was agreed to, on division.° There is another species of commission, of a less prominent and important character, but which is nevertheless of great utility in furthering the work of administration, viz.: what is usually termed a departmental committee, appointed by a treasury minute, or by the authority of a secretary of state, for the purpose of instituting enquiries into matters of official concern, and suggesting improvements or remedies for obvious defects n Hans. D. v. 217, p. 213. • See also Mr. Gladstone's observations in regard to attitude of the Disraeli administration towards endowed schools commissioners, Hans. D. v. 221, p. 563. And observations in regard to Irish Church Temporalities Commission not being under control of Irish government. They were appointed by Act of Parliament, and merely subject in financial proceedings to review of Audit Office. See Hans. D. v. 225, p. 1303; v. 228, p. 1403. For copy of the treasury minute of April 12, 1853, appointing a committee of enquiry into the organisation of the permanent civil service, see Com. Pap. 1854-5, v. 30, p. 375. or deficiencies in existing administrative arrangements." Such committees are generally composed of two or more permanent and experienced officers, belonging to the particular departments concerned in the proposed investigation, with whom is frequently associated a lord of the treasury, or some other subordinate member of the administration. But it is not the practice to communicate to Parliament the names of persons employed in such enquiries, as it would expose them to responsibilities to which they ought not to be subjected.* On May 8, 1868, a motion was made in the House of Commons to resolve, that 'two members of this House, and another civil engineer, should be added to the committee appointed [by the secretary of state for war] to consider the question of the fortifications for the defence of the United Kingdom and of the colonies, and that arrangements shall be made to stop, as far as possible, all further outlay until that committee shall have reported to this House.' After a long debate, during which it was objected that the appointment of members of the House of Commons on a departmental committee would have the effect of taking away, in a great measure, the responsibility in the matter which ought to rest solely on the executive government,' the motion was withdrawn. Another motion to suspend the said works until the report of this departmental committee shall have been communicated to the House was then put and negatived. If a political officer be included in a departmental committee, and a change of ministry should occur before its labours are completed, the committee would necessarily become defunct. Although, if the committee were prepared with a report, they might be permitted to present an informal and unofficial statement, or draft report, to the new administration, setting forth what they had intended to embody in their report, which would receive the careful consideration of the government.* See Mr. Gladstone's observations on utility of an official committee of practical men, as a means of breaking ground upon a question of administrative reform. Hans D. v. 193, p. 320. Hans. D. v. 215, p. 523. s 1b. v. 191. pp. 2021-2054. See ante, vol. 1. p. 427. Ib. v. 188, p. 1909. Com. Pap. 1867, v. 39, p. 425. Expenses of committees. Reports. Places of parlia mentary leaders. Salaried public officers receive no additional allowance for services on a departmental committee. The remuneration of persons not already in official employ, who are appointed to such service, is authorised and prescribed by a treasury minute, and charged to the account of civil contingencies." It thus comes under the review of the House of Commons, when a vote is submitted in supply to make good advances out of this fund. Reports from departmental committees are usually regarded as confidential documents, and are only communicated to Parliament at the discretion of government." Thus, on June 8, 1868, the home secretary declined to lay before the House of Commons the report and evidence taken by a committee appointed by him to enquire into the management of the Metropolitan Police, 'for the reason that the witnesses were informed that their evidence would not be made public.' Immediately afterwards, the secretary for war declined to lay upon the table the report of the committee on obstructions for the defence of harbours, &c., 'as it contained matter which it would be inexpedient to make public.' x 2. THE PARLIAMENTARY DUTIES OF PARTICULAR MINISTERS. We next proceed to consider the duties which are appropriately assigned to particular members of the administration in connection with Parliament. Our observations on this head will chiefly apply to the House of Commons, that being the chamber wherein the most arduous labours and responsibilities are exacted from ministers of the crown. But first let us briefly notice the places assigned by usage in the Houses of Parliament to the leaders of the respective parties of the government and of the opposition. "Com. Pap. 1854-5, v. 30, p. 376. See ante, p. 20. Civ. Serv. Est. 1867-8, Class VII. p. 20. Hans. D. v. 170, p. 198; Ib. v. 215, pp. 526, 1558; v. 223, p. 723; Mir. of Parl. 1840, p. 1120; and see ante, vol. 1, p. 442. * Hans. D. v. 192, p. 1222. In the House of Lords the members of the administration sit on the front bench, on the right of the woolsack, which is accordingly known as the ministerial or treasury bench; the peers who usually vote with them. occupy the other benches on the same side of the House. The peers in opposition are ranged on the left side of the chamber; while those who desire to maintain a political neutrality usually sit upon the cross benches, which are placed between the table and the bar. bench. In the House of Commons, the front bench, on the Treasury right hand of the chair, is reserved for members holding office under the crown, and is styled the treasury bench. The front bench opposite is ordinarily occupied by privy councillors and other members who have held office under the crown." The accommodation provided for members who desire to occupy a neutral position between contending parties is very inadequate." On the opening of a new Parliament, the four members for the City of London claim, by ancient usage, and generally exercise, the right of sitting on the privy councillors' bench; at other times that bench is left for the ministers of the crown, who are supposed by their avocations to be prevented from coming down to take places for themselves. But though the reservation of a separate bench to the use of privy councillors is traceable at least as far back as the reign of Queen Mary, it is only as a matter of courtesy and not of right. Mr. Holles, an eminent member of Parliament in 1628, and William Cobbett, at the opening of the first Reform Parliament in 1833, are memorable examples of private members asserting the right, on particular occasions, of sitting on the front bench above the privy councillors.' In Walpole's time (1741) it c See ante, p. 112; D'Ewes' Journal, p. 176. Ib. pp. 920, 924. Hatsell, Prec. v. 2, p. 94. Knight, Popular Hist. Leader of the House d was customary for the leaders of adverse parties being privy councillors to sit upon that bench together; but since the accession of George III. it has been usual to concede to ministers of the crown of every grade, including even the officers of the royal household, the undisturbed possession of the treasury bench. (a.) The Leader of the Government in the House of Lords. In the House of Lords, as well as in the Commons, of Lords. there is invariably a minister specially entrusted with the lead and management of public business on behalf of the executive government. When the prime minister is a peer, he will generally undertake this duty himself. Otherwise, it is confided to the minister who, in virtue of his position and qualifications, is considered by the prime minister as being the most capable of filling it with advantage. It was customary, until the early part of this century, that when the prime minister was a commoner, the lead of the House of Lords should be given to the home secretary, if a peer. In 1807, the lead was assigned to the secretary, Lord Hawkesbury, notwithstanding that the premier (the Duke of Portland) was a peer.f By whomsoever undertaken, the leadership of the House of Lords is a charge which confers 'great importance' upon its possessor, as well as 'great influence in the general administration and patronage of the government.' It naturally calls for the exercise of the highest qualities of a statesman, inasmuch as the fixed character of our constitution renders it the interest, not to say the paramount duty, of every minister of Eng. v. 8, p. 317; and see Le d Mahon, Hist. of Eng. v. 3, p. 6 p. 432; Lewis Administrations, p. 70 n. e Hans. D. v. 186, p. 226. Yonge, Life of Ld. Liverpool, v. 1, pp. 145, 193, 228. Marquis Wellesley, Parl. Deb. v. 23, Appx. p. iv. |