Precedents. public, paid for serving as chairmen would outweigh the undoubted advantages that would accrue therefrom."] d; It was asserted, moreover, that the precedent established by Lord John Russell was 'very inconvenient if not unconstitutional.' There were certainly instances of cabinet ministers 'sitting in the House of Lords, without holding at the time any particular offices. In the House of Commons, however, there was one such instance only, until the case of the noble lord ; and there was none in which he had acted, like the noble lord, as the organ of the Government.' Were this practice to be followed, it would permit the crown to 'select its ministerial advisers from members of that House, without requiring that the persons so selected should go back to their constituents for re-election' and 'the country would be deprived of the means of knowing who, in fact, were the responsible advisers of the crown. For there being no responsibility which enabled the Commons to question, by impeachment, the conduct of a minister, unless the act complained of could be proved by an official signature or seal, ministerial responsibility, which has already become little else than responsibility to public opinion and to parliamentary censure, would be still further weakened, and the anomalies of the constitution' increased.a Lord John Russell replied to these arguments by declaring that it is not merely the business which a minister transacts by virtue of his office, but any advice he has given, and which he may be proved before a committee of this House, or at the bar of the House of Lords, to have given (in the capacity of a privy councillor) for which he is responsible, and for which he may suffer the penalties which may ensue,' equally whether he holds office or not, because all privy councillors are responsible for any advice they may tender to the sovereign. Without wishing to enter into any question personal to himself, Lord John Russell admitted that the organ of the government in this House should, generally speaking, hold office.' After which the motion was withdrawn. On June 9 certain ministerial changes took place, and Lord John Russell was appointed president of the council.d After his re-election he continued to act as leader of the House of Commons. b • Com. Pap. 1863, v. 8, pp. 210, Sir C. Wood and Mr. Walpole, b Martin's Life of Pr. Consort, v. 2, p 557. C Hans. D. v. 130, pp. 386-389. d Com. Jour. v. 109, p. 296. (c.) Ministers charged with the moving of Estimates and submitting the Budget in the House of Commons. supply As a general rule, any member of the administration Moving of who represents a department on behalf of which votes votes. are to be taken in committee of supply is competent to propose such votes. But it is customary, under ordinary circumstances, to assign this duty to the parliamentary secretary of the treasury, or of the war departments respectively. navy or In the event of the secretary of state for war and the first lord of the admiralty being members of the House of Lords, the under secretaries of these departments become their official representatives in the Lower House. Otherwise, they ought not to move the estimates for their respective departments, except in the presence of their official superior-who is the responsible minister to afford the necessary explanations upon matters of importance to Parliament-unless with the intention of merely taking a vote on account,' or upon a minor question. But for special reasons, the first lord of the treasury may undertake to propose these estimates." The civil service estimates are ordinarily moved by the financial secretary to the treasury, in presence of the chancellor of the exchequer and other ministers for whose departments the supply is required, who should be at hand to explain or defend a vote or item that may be objected to. Any unusual or extraordinary vote, however, would be proposed by the chancellor of the exchequer himself; or, at his discretion, by the first lord. of the treasury, notwithstanding that the chancellor of the exchequer may be present.i • See May, ed. 1883, p. 657; ante, vol. 1, p. 751, where the exceptions p. to this rule are stated. Hans. D. v. 185, p. 1818; Ib. v. 193, p. 535. Ib. v. 145, p. 850. 3rd Rep. Com. on Civ. Serv. Exp. p. vi. Com. Pap. 1873, v. 7. Hans. D. v. 172, p. 75; v. 181, p. 1055. Ib. v. 171, pp. 903-924. Votes an ex minister. On March 4, 1867, General Peel, secretary of state for war, moved by having differed with his colleagues upon the reform question, retired from the ministry, and was replaced by Sir John Pakington, on whose behalf a new writ was issued on March 8. On March 7, however, General Peel being still the nominal secretary for war, with the consent of the ministry, moved the army estimates, in committee of supply, having expressed his willingness and desire to have an opportunity of explaining to the House 'those estimates and that policy which he had recommended to his colleagues, and which they had adopted.' No objection was made to this proceeding, and, after the General had finished his statement, the vote for the number of men was taken.k By a secretary in the absence of his chief. On March 14, 1867, a question of procedure arose upon the navy estimates. The newly appointed first lord of the Admiralty had gone for re-election, and the ex-first lord, who had been appointed minister for war, had not yet resumed his place in the House. Accordingly the secretary of the admiralty, Lord H. Lennox, was charged with the moving of these estimates. It has been already stated' that upon the opening of the army or navy estimates, and on moving the first vote thereon, it is usual for a discussion to take place upon the whole policy of the estimates; and that after the first vote has been agreed to, it is not competent for any member to discuss questions of general policy. Under these circumstances it was objected (by Mr. Gladstone and others) that while the secretary of the admiralty was perfectly competent to move the estimates, and make the general statement thereon in committee of supply, the committee ought not to be asked to agree to the first vote until the responsible minister was present. If the first lord had been a peer, then the secretary would be the recognised organ of the department in the Commons. But when the first lord sits in the House of Commons, it would be highly inexpedient to discuss the naval policy of the government in his absence. Whatever arguments might be urged against that policy would be thrown away upon the secretary, who is the mere mouthpiece of his chief, it not being his business to announce a policy, or to give an opinion' of his own. A simple vote 'on account,' or a vote on a question of detail, could be agreed to, upon motion of the secretary, in the absence of the first lord, without any irregularity; but no discussion, or vote, upon the principle of the estimates' should proceed under such circumstances. It was finally agreed that the secretary of the admiralty should be allowed, 'for the sake of the public convenience,' to make his general statement in committee of supply, after which, at the suggestion of Mr. Gladstone, and with the con Hans. D. v. 185, pp. 1310, 1448. 1 See ante, vol. 1, p. 752. sent of the chancellor of the exchequer, the committee reported progress before agreeing to the first vote. After the first lord had resumed his seat the debate was renewed, and the estimates were agreed to." budget. It is ordinarily the duty of the chancellor of the ex- The chequer himself to submit the annual financial statement, usually termed the budget,' to the House of Commons. But in 1848 the premier (Lord John Russell) himself introduced the budget, instead of leaving it to his chancellor of the exchequer ; who was present in the House at the time. But his lordship's proposals were not favourably received, and ten days afterwards the chancellor of the exchequer brought in an amended budget.P In 1801 Mr. Pitt continued to act as chancellor of the exchequer, and even brought in the annual budget, a fortnight after his resignation of office, the arrangements for the appointment of his successor, and of a new administration, having been delayed by the king's illness. [For several years after the union with Ireland, the accounts of the two countries were separately kept, and there continued to be a chancellor of the exchequer for Ireland, by whom the Irish budget was introduced. In 1804, upon the resignation of this functionary, and before his successor was appointed, the Irish budget was submitted to the House of Commons by a private member.]" On November 28, 1867, the chancellor of the exchequer (Mr. Disraeli) being absent from illness, the secretary of the treasury undertook to submit, in Committee of Ways and Means, a financial statement and resolution in respect to the raising of funds to defray the cost of the Abyssinian expedition, for which the House had voted a supply of 2,000,000l. No objection was taken to this proceeding, and Mr. Gladstone complimented the secretary upon the manner in which he had discharged the duty. Moreover, on account of the temporary nature of the proposed financial arrangement, and its being liable to alteration when the annual budget should be introduced, it was unanimously agreed to permit it to be debated at once, and passed the same day, instead of adhering to the usual practice of adjourning to a future day before expressing opinions or deciding upon the merits of a financial statement.s m Hans. D. v. 185, pp. 1814-1857. 464, 871. Com. Pap. 1868-9, v. 35, pp. 358. Secretaries of (d.) Subordinate Members of the Ministry. The most prominent and useful of the subordinate members of the administration are probably the two Treasury. joint secretaries of the treasury. But it is unnecessary the Position of subor to dwell upon the position and responsibility of these functionaries, as we have already directed attention to their services, as the confidential assistants of the leader of the government in the control of the House of Commons, as well as to the official duties of the financial secretary in matters of supply." Their departmental functions will be more appropriately described in another chapter. When the responsible minister of a department of dinate state is present, it is not usual for the secretary or ministers. under-secretary to answer questions upon departmental affairs. An under-secretary or other subordinate minister must be regarded as being merely the mouthpiece of his superior officer, and as only responsible for giving effect to the instructions of his chief, and for his personal good conduct. The political head of the department is alone responsible to Parliament. All subordinate officers are really bond fide subordinates, and have no authority to speak for themselves in any single thing.'" This applies even to an under-secretary who represents his department in one House whilst his chief sits in the other, though an under-secretary or vice-president who is in this position, and is required to take a prominent part in the conduct of public affairs, is naturally supposed to have a share in the government of the department, and cannot absolve himself from a certain modified responsibility in regard to the same, notwithstanding that a See ante, pp. 401, 457. 188, p. 1520. Rep. Com. on Foreign Trade, Com. Pap. 1864, v. 7; Evid. 1771, 2234. |