THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE QUER, in reply, said, he regretted very much that any impediment had been thrown in the way of proceeding to the appointment of the Select Committee with reference to these duties. He did not quite understand upon what ground the opposition which he saw was offered to the nomination of the Committee by his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac) rested. He thought that was the only opposition which was now offered, and it would be hardly fair if the matter were brought on at a period of the evening when it would not be possible to discuss it. It would not be easy, and would probably cause some inconvenience, if he were to propose to alter the other Business in order to take the Motion for nominating this Committee. He therefore trusted that his hon. Friend might be able to arrange that the Notice of the Amendment might be taken off the Paper. expended in the Transvaal in a former | Government, to carry out the decision of year, I think in 1877-8, that money the House? was expended out of the Army Fund in respect of services in the nature of Army services connected with the annexation of the Transvaal. I have not at this moment a Statement of the application of the money; but I will inquire of the War Office, and, if possible, it shall be furnished. The money was expended out of the Army grant, and the account of that grant has been before the Controller and Auditor General, and has been passed by him; and as there was no excess found, no grant has had to be asked for. With regard to the second Question, Her Majesty's Representative in South Africa has no authority for spending any British money in the administration of the Transvaal in the present year; but, if necessary, of course, an Estimate would be submitted. The only exceptional case might be that in the event of any serious military emergency he might, upon his own responsibility, draw on the Treasury chest, and in that case the funds would have to be supplied. No expenditure can be incurred in the administration of the Transvaal without the previous sanction of the Home Government. SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL asked, If there would be any expenditure this year? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will give Notice of that Question. MR. RITCHIE asked the hon. Member for Nottingham if he should persist in his opposition? [No reply was given.] EGYPT - FINANCIAL CHANGES - DIS- QUESTION. MR. E. JENKINS asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, although Mr. Rivers Wilson has been withdrawn from Egypt, the THE SUGAR INDUSTRIES THE French Government has not declined to SELECT COMMITTEE.-QUESTION. withdraw M. de Blignières; whether the MR. RITCHIE asked Mr. Chancellor idea of any joint action in regard to of the Exchequer, Whether, seeing that Egyptian affairs between the English the House of Commons and the Govern- and French Governments has been ment have approved of the appointment abandoned; and what, if any, difference of a Select Committee to inquire into existed in the grounds on which the apthe Sugar Industries, and that the Se-plication of the Khedive for permission cretary of State for Foreign Affairs has officially intimated that Her Majesty's Government have decided to make no further representations on the subject to Foreign Governments until the Select Committee has reported, he will afford. me facilities for nominating the Committee, as, in consequence of notice of opposition to the nomination of the Committee having been placed on the Paper, it is rendered practically impossible, without the assistance of the The Chancellor of the Exchequer to be granted by the French and English Governments respectively to Messrs. Wilson and de Blignières to accept office in Egypt was assented to by those Governments? MR. BOURKE: Sir, I shall be very happy to give a definite answer to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee. The hon. Member asks me whether the idea of any joint action with France in relation to Egyptian affairs has been abandoned. ment. INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)-THE INDIAN BUDGET. QUESTION. I beg to reply that the idea of joint action | be passed upon which the Bill would bo in regard to Egyptain affairs has not founded, which would subsequently pass been abandoned. With regard to the through all its stages. That was a other Question on the Paper of the hon. matter upon which there would naturally Member, I must inform him that the be some discussion, and he observed Question relates to the action and motive that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy of the French Government, and, although (Sir George Campbell) had given Notice we are most happy to give every infor- to raise the question of the amount of mation we can with regard to the the loan in that stage of the preliminary proceedings of Her Majesty's Govern- Committee, not upon the Loan Bill itself; ment, it would be impossible for us and, therefore, he (the Chancellor of the to adopt the same rule in regard to Exchequer) was afraid that if they prothe proceedings of a foreign Govern- ceeded first by taking a discussion upon the Budget that, possibly, would run even more than one night upon Indian Finance generally, and were not allowed to make any progress with the Loan Bill, considerable delay would occur. If he could see his way to any arrangement by which that might be avoided, he should be very glad to make an arrangement. He would suggest that after the discussion had taken place on the Indian Budget, and the House had decided upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), they should be allowed to take the preliminary stage of the Loan Bill without further delay and discussion; and if his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy would postpone till a later stage of the Bill the question which he proposed to raise, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would take care to bring it on at such a time as would afford ample time for discussion. The House would see that, in making this proposal, he wished to deal as fairly as possible with those who were interested in the matter. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON wished to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to a conversation that took place yesterday regarding the Indian Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked whether he would agree to introduce the Indian Budget on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and would allow discussion in the ordinary manner. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he preferred that the statement should be made in Committee on the Resolution referring to the Loan. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, taking into consideration what had fallen from Mr. Speaker, and also the strong feeling entertained in some quarters of the House upon the propriety of that course, he could see his way to adopt the more ordinary and regular course, and to arrange that the Indian Budget should be made upon the Motion that the House should go into Committee on the Indian Accounts, and not in the exceptional manner which he proposed yesterday? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, it was very far indeed from the wish of Her Majesty's Government to proceed in any exceptional manner with reference to the Indian Budget. But what he wished to point out to the House yesterday, and would again remind them of, was this-there was an important financial proposal with reference to India which required the passing of a Bill for the purpose of raising a loan. It was necessary, in the first instance, to have a Committee of the House. In that Committee a Resolution would SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL said, his difficulty was that the first stage of the Indian Loans Bill would be the passing in Committee of a Resolution to the effect that it was desirable to raise this loan of £10,000,000. This would distinctly pledge the House to the expediency of raising the loan. He was quite willing, however, to agree to the suggested arrangement, provided it was clearly understood that they did not bind themselves to the principle involved in the Resolution, and that he would be at liberty to raise the question of which he had given Notice on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill. He might take this opportunity of saying that if the Resolution of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) was moved, inasmuch as it must inevitably be accepted by the Government, he (Sir George Campbell) would move an Amendment to the effect "That this House regards with apprehension the state of the finances of India, and is of opinion that it is not sufficiently controlled, Her Majesty's Government having disregarded the letter and spirit of the provisions of the Act for the better government of India on that subject." THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the Resolution which the Government would propose would be a Resolution, not to raise £10,000,000, but to raise any sum of money not exceeding £10,000,000. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not be compromised by the passing of it. ARMY-VOLUNTEERING FROM THE MILITIA TO THE LINE. QUESTION. COLONEL MURE asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that volunteering for the Line has been opened within the last few days in various regiments of Militia; and, if that is the case, whether this course has been rendered necessary owing to the youth and want of stamina of the regiments at home which would naturally furnish the reinforcements of the Army in Zululand? COLONEL STANLEY: It is the case, Sir, that on this, as on some other previous occasions, volunteers from the Militia have been called for to fill up vacancies in certain regiments-in this instance, in the first regiment for foreign service, and in the deôpts of regiments serving in the field. The vacancies had been caused by these other regiments having to give up large numbers of men to the regiments serving at the Cape. It has been decided to limit the volunteering to men of 20 years of age. It is with the view undoubtedly, of getting men of a more seasoned nature than the recruits who would naturally come to the Colours, and, to a certain extent, trained men. COLONEL MURE gave Notice that, on an early day, he should call the attention of the House to the unsatisfactory working of the present short-service system in the Army, to the youth and immaturity of a large portion of the Infantry of the Line, and the consequent difficulty in providing an ample Force for the defence of our Colonial Empire in times of emergency. Sir George Campbell PREROGATIVE OF THE CROWN. QUESTION. MR. FAWCETT said, he rose for the purpose of making an appeal to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) with reference to the Motion which stood in his name for that evening as to the Royal Prerogative. He did not desire at present to say a word as to the merits of that Motion; but he thought he should be expressing the opinion of every hon. Member, when he said that it raised a question of extreme importance and great delicacy. Anyone who knew the hon. Member for Swansea MR. E. JENKINS rose to Order. He desired to know whether it was in Order for the hon. Member for Hackney to address an appeal to the hon. Member for Swansea with reference to a Motion now before the House? MR. SPEAKER: So far as the hon. Member for Hackney had proceeded, I cannot say that he was out of Order. MR. FAWCETT said, that everyone who was acquainted with the hon. Member for Swansea must be aware that he was the last man who would knowingly place the House in an unfair position to consider such a question; and he appealed to his hon. Friend as to whether he did not think that, in consequence of the course he had adopted in the present instance, the House would not approach the discussion of this question with advantage? What were the facts of the case? Six weeks ago, the hon. Member put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer-["Order!"]— MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to be now entering into the subject of the Motion, and is trenching upon the limits of Order. MR. FAWCETT said, he only desired to explain the reasons for making his appeal. The Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea had been on the Paper for six weeks, and arose out of a reply which he received to a Question addressed by him to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yesterday afternoon, the hon. Member suddenly announced that he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), and to embody it in his Resolution. The House was thus placed at once in a difficulty SIR ROBERT PEEL rose to Order. Of course, if the hon. Member for Hack ney intended to conclude with a Motion, | quite in Order. Under these circumthe whole question would be opened at stances, he did not see how he would be once; but he put it to the Speaker whe- placing the House in an unfair position ther it was at all regular for the hon. by proceeding with his Resolution, as Gentleman to enter upon the discussion altered; and he did not feel disposed to of a matter which was to form the sub- respond to the appeal which had just ject of a debate about to take place? MR. SPEAKER: No doubt, it would be quite irregular for the hon. Member to discuss any portion of the matter embraced within the scope of the Motion which the hon. Member for Swansea proposed to submit to the House. been made to him. PREROGATIVE OF THE CROWN. MR. DILLWYN, in rising to move"That, to prevent the growing abuse by Her Majesty's Ministers of the Prerogative and influence of the Crown, and consequent augmentation of the power of the Government in enabling them, under cover of the supposed personal interposition of the Sovereign, to withdraw from the cognizance and control of this House matwithin the scope of its powers and privileges, ters relating to policy and expenditure properly it is necessary that the mode and limits of the action of the Prerogative should be more strictly observed,” MR. FAWCETT did not say a word as to the merits or demerits of the Motion. He was merely making a statement of facts. His hon. Friend said he accepted the Motion of the hon. Member for Dundee, and late on the previous evening had given Notice of a Resolution in a materially altered form. Now, what he desired to know was, whether it was not contrary to the ordinary usages of Parliament, and inconsistent with the convenience of the House, that Notice of Motion on a most important and delicate question should be given at so late an hour of the previous evening that it was impossible for hon. Members to see it in print, and, therefore, to give adequate Notice of any Amendments to it which they might wish to move? In these circumstances, and not because he was anxious that the Motion should be indefinitely postponed, he begged to ask his hon. Friend whether he did not think it fair to the House to put off his Reso-quired should not be carried on without lution for some time longer? said, he desired, before entering upon the question which it raised, to disclaim any intention whatsoever of reflecting upon the action of Her Majesty the Queen, who thoroughly understood her duty as a Constitutional Sovereign, and who never interfered improperly in public affairs. He understood that her Majesty always took care to be fully informed of all the proceedings of her Ministers, which she re her full knowledge and concurrence. In 1852, Lord Palmerston, having altered some despatches, Her Majesty sent a Memorandum to Lord John Russell, who was then Prime Minister. That Memorandum was as follows: MR. DILLWYN said, he was rather surprised at the appeal which had been addressed to him. His hon. Friend who had just spoken was present when he (Mr. Dillwyn) had the honour of waiting upon Mr. Speaker with reference to the alteration of the Resolution. Hemerston will distinctly state what he proposes found that a misconception had arisen respecting the object of his Motion; and, therefore, he was glad to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), and endeavour to embody it in his Resolution. That Amendment eliminated words which seemed to some hon. Gentlemen objectionable, inasmuch as they appeared to them to reflect upon the action of Her Majesty. The hon. Member for Hackney raised before Mr. Speaker his objection to the alteration of the Motion; but Mr. Speaker's decision was that he (Mr. Dillwyn) was "The Queen requires, first, that Lord Palin a given case, in order that the Queen may know as distinctly to what she is giving her Royal sanction; secondly, having once given her sanction to a measure, that it be not arbitarily altered or modified by the Minister. Such an act she must consider as failing in sincerity towards the Crown, and justly to be visited by the exercise of her Constitutional right of disShe expects to be kept missing the Minister. informed of what passes between him and the Foreign Minister before important decisions are taken based upon that intercourse; to receive the foreign despatches in good time, and to have the drafts for her approval sent to her in sufficient time to make herself acquainted with their contents before they must be sent off. The Queen thinks it best that Lord John Russell should show this letter to Lord Palmerston." cannot be enforced because it has fallen into "A Prerogative founded on usage, which desuetude, is a contradiction in terms. No one will pretend that any Prerogative of the King of England is founded either on military force or on the express consent of the people; every derived from Statute or from prescription, and, Prerogative of the Crown must, therefore, be in either case, there must be a legal and established mode of exercising it. Where no such mode can be pointed out, we may be assured that the Prerogative, so boldly claimed, is derived neither from law nor usage, but founded on a theory of Monarchy imported from abroad, subversive of law and liberty, and alien to the spirit as well as the practice of our Constitu tion." Lord Russell, in his book on the English That Memorandum served to show that | tical act without an adviser responsible for the Her Majesty identified herself with the same. acts of her Ministers; but she, at the same time, knew it was right and proper not to take action without her Ministers. It would be seen, from the last volume of the Life of the late Prince Consort, that a letter of his to the French Emperor, which had been characterized by the writer as "a long and friendly chat," had been submitted in the usual way to the Prime Minister and to Lord Clarendon. The Prerogative of the Crown was very large and undefined, and the very uncertainty which existed on the point made it all the more necessary that they should distinctly watch and observe the action of that Prerogative. It was so great that, unless checked, and kept "The King has, by his Prerogative, the comwithin its proper limits, it would be mand of the Army; but that Army is only maininconsistent with the privileges, the tained by virtue of a law to punish mutiny and rights, and the liberties of the people. desertion passed from year to year. The King has It was, therefore, the duty of Parlia- a right to declare war, but if the House deny ment, whenever a doubt arose, to consupplies he cannot carry it on for a week. The King may make a treaty of peace, but if it is sider and debate the whole subject. dishonourable to the country the Ministers who Lord Erskine, speaking in the year sign it may be impeached. Nor is the King's 1807, said, with regard to Prerogative command any excuse for a wrong administration of power. The Earl of Danby was impeached for a letter which contained a postscript in the King's own hand, declaring it was written by his order. The maxim of the Constitution is that the King cannot act without advisers responsible by law; and so far is this maxim carried that a commitment by the King, although he is the fountain of justice, was held to be void because there was no Minister responsible for it." "The maxim that the King can do no wrong does not seek to alter the nature and constitution of things, but to preserve the Government, not only against the irreverence and loss of dignity arising from the very imputation of it. No act of State or Government can, therefore, be the King's; he cannot act but by advice, and he who holds office sanctions what is done, from whatever source it may proceed. This, my Lords, is not the legal fiction of the Constitution, but for the practical benefit and blessing of it. I am pleading the cause of the King and the people together in enforcing it, and I never will remain silent when this principle is disturbed.” Blackstone asserted that "There cannot be a stronger proof of that genuine freedom which is the boast of this age and country than the power of discussing with decency and respect the limits of the King's Prerogative." Lord Cairns, too, gave it as his opinion that "Prerogative is a power not conferred by Statute-that is what makes Prerogative differ from every other power in this country. Now, there is one thing very clear in our Constitution-the Crown can do no wrong; and another thing is, that it is to the advice given by Ministers that we are to look for responsi bility. If the Sovereign were to place ters upon a Bill that had passed through the two her veto by the advice of Her Majesty's MinisHouses, that veto would be operative; but no For his own part, he knew that in dis-one would deny that it would be unconstitucussing Prerogative he should do so, not only with decency and respect, but as loyally as the most loyal of Her Majesty's subjects. The uncertainty that pervaded the subject was indicated in the opinions of Mr. Allen, Earl Russell, and the present Lord Chancellor. The former of these, in his Inquiry into the Rise and Progress of Prerogative, said "The King, it is true, can do no wrong, and is not amenable to any earthly tribunal; but, on the other hand, he can perform no one poli Mr. Dillwyn tional." It was to be noticed that the Constitution had imposed limits to the exercise of the Prerogative; and of these the first and foremost was the check possessed by the House in being able to control the public purse, a power which, though it ought to be most jealously guarded, seemed to have been to a certain extent impaired and diminished of late years. Next to that check came the principle of Ministerial responsibility, according to |