2l6 KANSAS UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY. 



Stating that "they are proposed to be inserted by committee" and 

 they are supposed to be in blank until inserted by a formal motion. 

 The House of Commons is, however, extremely jealous of its privi- 

 leges, and a bill coming from the Lords which contains anything 

 bearing on taxation is likely to be objected to at any time.* In fact 

 the power of the Commons over the grant of supply is absolute 

 whenever the Commons see fit to exercise it. The Commons make 

 the grant, the Lords merely assent to it. The relation between 

 Crown, Lords and Commons in the matter of supply is clearly set 

 forth by May. He says, "The Crown demands money, the Commons 

 grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant, but the Commons do not 

 vote money unless it be required by the Crown, nor impose or aug- 

 ment taxes unless they be necessary for meeting the supplies which 

 they have voted or are about to vote, and for supplying general defi- 

 ciencies in the revenue. The Crown has no concern in the nature or 

 distribution of the taxes, but the foundation of all parliamentary 

 taxation is its necessity for the public service as declared by the 

 Crown through its constitutional advisers, "t The general principle 

 that the Commons will not grant supplies unless they are proposed 

 by the Crown was emphasised by a standing order of March 20, 

 1866: 1 "This House will receive no petition for any sum relating 

 to the public service, or proceed upon any motion for a grant or 

 charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the consoli- 

 dated fund, or yet of moneys to be provided by Parliament, but what 

 is recommended from the Crown. "§ Such a principle is not only 

 a great safeguard against hasty and unwise appropriations, but it 

 ensures a careful balancing of income and expenditure. || 



The importance of the control of taxation is nowhere more evident 

 than in England, where the Commons possessing this power, have 

 practically become the sole governing body. In the end, the control 

 of the purse brings with it the control of all matters of legislation. 



♦For example. June 15, \?60. a bill introduced by the Lords came up for its secoml 

 reading in the Conim<ms. It provided that i)ersons'sellinp and hawUiuK poods on Sunday 

 should be fined and the fine paid over to the Keceiver o( ihe Metropolitan Police district 

 and applied in aid of the expeiir^es of the police. But an objertlon was made that a good 

 share of the expenses of the Metropolitan and City Police was iirovideJ for out of the 

 consolidated fund and hence the hill was one which would lesseu the taxation of Her 

 Majesty's subjects, and so was an invasion of the rights of the Commons. Hansard's 

 Debates. 3rd Ser.. Vol. i.=)i>. p. .=.39. 



+ May, Parliamentary Practice, p. (551. 



JHansards Debates, 3rd Ser.. Vol. -'23. p. 879. 



§ Formerly the military estimates were not sut)mitted by the Crown hut by a committee 

 of the House of Commons, the reason probably beinii the fear of the iutlueuce of the 

 Crown over the army. But in 18(53 this custom" was abolished and all estimates are now 

 proposed by the Crowu ministers. 



11 Yet by means of what are called -'abstract resolutions." a member of the House can 

 cause the introduction of a bill relating to taxation. A lesolution is presented declaring 

 that such a bill ought to be introduced, aud it the resolution passes the ministry will 

 hardly refuse to introduce the bill thus brought to their notice. Such resolutions are 

 certainly contrarv to the spirit of the consiituti<m aud the standing order of March •-'(». 

 1866. 



