§ 257. “Vote, Resolution, or Proposed Law.”
No vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys can be passed, unless the purpose of the appropriation has been recommended by the Crown. Public revenue can be raised without the preliminary recommendation of the Crown, but once raised and once placed in the custody of the Crown, it cannot be expended except on the recommendation of the Crown, and for a purpose so recommended. The constitutional principle, which vests in the Crown the sole responsibility over national expenditure, is a most important one, and it greatly enhances the power and influence of the Executive.
“The modern change in the pecuniary position of the Crown has not affected the necessity of such an application to Parliament. The supplies are still granted to the Crown. To the Crown still belongs the management of the revenues of the State; and by it all payments for the public service are still made. The Crown, therefore, makes known to the Commons the pecuniary requirements of the Executive Government; and the Commons, upon this information, both grant such supplies towards these requirements as they think fit, and provide suitable means for raising the necessary amount. The foundation, therefore, of parliamentary taxation is its necessity for the public service as declared by the Crown through its political advisers. It is accordingly a fundamental rule of the House of Commons that the House will not entertain any petition or any notice for a grant of money, or which involves the expenditure of any money, unless it be communicated by the Crown. We are so accustomed to the general practice, and the deviations from it have been so inconsiderable, that its importance is scarcely appreciated. Those, however, who have had the experience of the results which followed from its absence, of the scramble among the members of the Legislature to obtain a share of the public money for their respective constituencies, of the ‘log-rolling,’ and of the predominance of local interests to the entire neglect of the public interest, have not hesitated to declare that ‘good government is not attainable while the unrestricted powers of voting public money and of managing the local expenditure of the community are lodged in the hands of an Assembly.’ This salutary rule has too often been evaded. The House of Commons sometimes addresses the Crown, requesting that a sum of money be issued for some particular purpose, and promising to make good the amount. This practice has been generally confined to small sums and to services, the amount of which cannot be immediately ascertained. It is sometimes also adopted at the end of the session, when the Committee of Supply has closed, and when the sum is not of sufficient magnitude to induce the re-opening of the Committee. It is rarely used, and never to any considerable extent, to overcome the reluctance of Ministers to some proposed outlay. Even in this extent the best parliamentary authorities regard the practice with great disfavour.” (Hearn's Gov. of Eng. 2nd ed. p. 376–7.)
“In colonies under responsible government, the Governor ought not to assume responsibility for the financial arrangements regarding expenditure which has been authorized by Parliament, so long as they do not contravene existing law: such matters of detail are distinctly within the province of ministers responsible to Parliament. Moreover, a constitutional Governor ‘takes no part in the settlement of the estimates, which are prepared by the responsible ministers at the head of the several departments of the public service.’ His signature to a message to enable the Assembly constituonally to take into their consideration any proposed vote of public money is, therefore, under ordinary circumstances, ‘a formal act,’ which does not necessarily express or imply a personal opinion with regard to the policy of the proceeding which, upon the advice of his ministers, he has thus initiated and authorized. But the omission of the Governor's recommendation to a measure appropriating public revenue is contrary to law, and invalidates all proceedings thereon.” (Todd, Parl. Gov. in Col. 2nd ed. p. 637.)
“In 1868, the then Governor of Victoria, Sir Henry Manners-Sutton, was instructed by the Colonial Secretary, in a despatch dated January 1, 1868, to refuse his sanction to placing on the estimates a grant in favour of the wife of ex-Governor Darling. But this objection was based on the ground of Imperial policy, which forbade any gift to be received by a colonial Governor, or any of his family, from the colony over which he had presided, either during his term of office or upon his retirement.” (Id. p. 638.)
“Governor Bowen, of Victoria, on September 19, 1877, telegraphed Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies to know whether he was at liberty to consent to his
― 682 ―
ministers placing on the estimates a vote for the payment of members of the local legislature, the principle of which had been twice affirmed by both Houses, notwithstanding that, subsequently, separate bills to authorize the payment of members had been rejected by the Legislative Council. In reply, the Colonial Secretary stated that, as the matter was one of purely local concern, and involved no question calling for the intervention of the Imperial Government, responsibility must rest entirely with ministers, and he saw no reason why the Governor should hesitate to follow their advice.” (Id.)