to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and £5000 to the Speaker of the House of Commons. The effect of placing these charges on the Consolidated Fund is to remove them entirely beyond the criticism of the House of Commons, it being agreed that the services they are intended to meet ought not to be liable every year to discussion, and perhaps heated and undignified criticism, in the representative Chamber.

Over the "Supply Services," or the second class of charges on the National Exchequer, the Commons exercise an annual supervision, for they must be voted by the House every year. They amounted last year to £111,076,000; and are divided into three classes -Army, Navy, and Civil Service. Army estimates last year came to close on thirty millions sterling, the Navy estimates to over thirty-one millions, and the Civil Service estimates to close on fifty millions.

The

In November and December the permanent officials of the various departments are busy calculating their expenditure for the coming year. The estimates thus prepared have to be approved in each case by the political chief or Minister, whose duty it will be to get the Cabinet to assent to them and afterwards to expound and justify them in the House of Commons. But before the estimates are submitted even to the Cabinet they come under the scrutiny of the Treasury, a department which is vested with control of the other departments in the expenditure of public money. The Treasury, by all accounts, keeps a tight hold, in the interest of the taxpayer, on the strings of the public purse. I remember hearing a remarkable attack on the department by Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords during the South African War. The Prime Minister did not go so far as to transfer the blame for the deficiency in guns and stores from the War Office to the Treasury, but he inti

mated that such was the parsimonious character of the control exercised by the Treasury over the spending departments that it led to delay in action, and consequently tended to weaken the power of the Empire in a crisis. The position was certainly curious. Here was a Prime Minister, strong-willed personally, with a harmonious Cabinet and a united Party supreme in the House of Commons, and yet on his own confession he was unable to assert his supremacy over "the system"-as he called it-of the Treasury. It seemed to indicate that the Treasury is independent of the Government, vested with a statutory or constitutional control over the public purse which enables it absolutely to disallow any item of departmental expense which may not meet with its approval, though the political chief of the department, and even the Cabinet as a whole, declare the expenditure to be essential to the national welfare. But it is impossible seriously to accept this presentation of the Treasury as a power beyond the control of the Ministry. The Treasury officially rejoices in the high-sounding title of "The Board of Commissioners for executing the office of Treasurer of the Exchequer of Great Britain, and the Lord High Treasurer of Ireland"; and its ukases to the spending departments are issued in the awe-inspiring name of "My Lords of the Treasury." But as the power behind the Board of Trade is the President, a member of the Government, so the Board of Treasury is really the Chancellor of the Exchequer-one of the chief henchmen of the Prime Minister-in the sense at least that he is the final arbiter in all things concerned with the national finance.

We may be sure that whatever authority is exercised by the Treasury in the way of criticizing, revising, and curtailing the Estimates, is inspired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. "The

Budget" is one of the most familiar of our Parliamentary terms. It is the comprehensive statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House of Commons usually at the end of April, dealing with the income and expenditure of the Kingdom for the ensuing twelve months. The balance-sheet of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is based as regards revenue upon the returns of the past financial year, ending March 31, and as regards expenditure upon the Estimates of the departments. His object is to present a popular Budget, which means a Budget that proposes a decrease rather than an increase in taxation. With that end in view the Treasury endeavors to check any tendency on the part of the departments to indulge in what it conceives to be unnecessary expenditure. But where the expenditure at issue involves a question of policy to which the Party in office is pledged, the Treasury's craving for economy must remain unsatisfied. It is impossible to think of the Treasury arrogating to itself a general control over the policy of the Government; or that such a preposterous claim would for one moment stand unchallenged by the Ministry.

Disraeli was prouder, it is said, of being Chancellor of the Exchequer than of being Prime Minister of England. That, however is doubtful. He showed unexpected capacity as Finance Minister, but his bizarre and romantic temperament found its completest expression in the dignity, power and influence of the Premiership. The one statesman to whom the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer had an irresistible charm was Gladstone. He told Sir Henry Taylor in 1864 that for nine or ten months of the year he was always willing to go out of office. "But," said he, "in the two or three that precede the Budget I begin to feel an itch to have the handling of it." During these two or three months the

moves and has his being in an atmosphere of figures. He has to make himself acquainted with the financial conditions of the country, and the state of affairs in the wide domain of commerce. He has to consider how the money required to carry out the policy of the Administration, and to meet the working expenses of the departments, can best be provided with the least inconvenience to the taxpayer, and without detriment to trade and industry. He is in receipt of bagfulls of unsolicited advice through the post. Here, for instance, is an extract from the Budget speech of Sir Michael HicksBeach in 1899:

I have been the victim for the last few weeks of an extraordinary number of persons who all seem to think that the object of taxation is not to raise revenue, but to penalize their pet aversions. (Laughter.) Dogs and cats, men servants and maid servants, advertisements and grinding organs, the bicycles which are so dear to my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury(laughter)—the perambulators of which more domesticated persons know the value (loud laughter)-have all bitter enemies in this country. One gentleman wants me to tax soap and artificial light; another suggests that if I would put a small duty on aerated waters I might make a man of the teetotaler(laughter) by whom I suppose he imagines that those beverages are principally consumed. (Renewed laughter.) Another gentleman tells me I might raise an enormous revenue if I would put a tax of £100 a head on every pauper alien landing in this country; and lastly, a very enticing person assures me that there must be at least 1500 individuals, gentlemen, men of birth, education, position, respected of their countrymen-not, of course, members of the House of Commons-every one of whom would gladly give £10,000 for a baronetcy-(laughter)-if I would only give them the chance. And then, on the other hand, there are those comforting prophets, all of whom have

doubtless shouted with the loudest for increased expenditure, who assure me that any kind of fresh taxation will be a screw in the coffin of her Majesty's Government. (Laughter.)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has at the Treasury probably the strongest staff of any Minister in the Administration. He needs it. Without his staff even Gladstone would have collapsed under the attack of "Budgetitis," so enormous is the rush of business as the time approaches for the annual financial statement. It is curious to read how Lord Althorp, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the early "Thirties, used to do all his Budget calculations, however complicated, alone in his closet. This system of working unaided in seclusion strikes the biographer of the noble lord as very admirable; and he contrasts with it the habit of William Pitt, who, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, used to take a Treasury clerk into his confidence. Pitt himself tells us that he never had a private secretary, as he had no duties requiring such assistance; and Macaulay dwells in wonder on the fact that he could explain a Budget without notes. Yet his first Budget in 1784 was very complicated. It dealt with as many as a hundred and thirty-three different taxes. In our times the Chancellor of the Exchequer unfolds his Budget to the House of Commons with the aid of a huge pile of typewritten documents.

In the autobiography of the eighth Duke of Argyll there is an interesting passage in which Gladstone's explanation of his first Budget to the Aberdeen Cabinet in 1853 is described.

He came into the room with a large flat, shallow, official box, very old and shabby, covered with drab-colored leather. He sat on a chair nearly fronting the window, whilst we all sat in a kind of loop around him. Opening the box on his knee, so that its lid stood upright and afforded a rest for any

paper placed upon its edge, he began a conversational exposition, which endured, without a moment's interruption, for more than three hours. Not a word of it was read, except when he had to refer to exact figures, which were accurately put down on pages of full-sized letter paper, which just fitted the box. The flow of language was uninterrupted, with just enough inflection of voice to mark the passages from mere statements of arithmetical bent to reflections upon them, or to consequent arguments and conclusions. The order was perfect in its lucidity, and the sentences as faultless as they were absolutely unhesitating.

The Budget speech in the House of Commons occupied four hours and three-quarters. "Gladstone set figures to music," some one said. "Not one of us could think for a moment of interrupting him, even to ask a question," says the Duke of Argyll, describing the scene in the Cabinet. But it is not always that the objections and doubts of Ministers in regard to the Budget are thus silenced by the magic of a great financier. Indeed, Gladstone himself declared that no Chancellor of the Exchequer should attend a Cabinet discussion on financial proposals without a letter of resignation in his pocket. Conflicts are inevitable, perhaps, between him and his colleagues in reference to the estimates. His desire is for economy. He protests that he cannot meet the claims of a colleague without imposing fresh taxation. The Minister declines to accept a reduction of the expenditure which he holds to be essential to the efficient working of his department. The difference can be settled, if it is amenable to settlement at all, only by the Prime Minister. He possesses the controlling power in the Cabinet; and in the investigation and settlement of differences between Ministers his natural desire, of course, is the stability and har

mony of the Government. If no settlement is possible then the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the chief of the department concerned resigns. Lord Randolph Churchill fell in 1886, because he was unable with any regard for economy to sanction the estimates for the Army and Navy. The cost of these services is now so enormous that it governs the whole financial programme of the year, and yet they are deemed to be so vital to the existence of the Empire that their estimates do not come under the supervision of the Treasury until the decision of the Cabinet has first been taken upon them. In the "Life of Lord Randolph Churchill," we are told that on his return to the Treasury, after having explained his Budget to his colleagues -a Budget which was prepared but never opened in the House of Commons -the officials offered him their congratulations upon the acquiescence of the Cabinet. But he was far from contident. He had been oppressed by the silence which followed the explanation of his proposals. "They said nothing," he told Sir Reginald Welby, the Permanent Secretary, "nothing at all; but you should have seen their faces!"

"Budget Night" is awaited with intense interest throughout the kingdom. It is one of the big occasions of the House of Commons-an occasion when the House is crowded to its utmost extent and is most animated. There is much speculation beforehand in regard to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The departmental estimates have already been published. The state of trade is known. It can, therefore, be guessed whether the revenue of the coming year will balance the expenditure, or whether there will be a deficit-an excess of the estimated expenditure over the estimated revenue; or a surplus-an excess of the estimated revenue over the estimated expenditure. If there is a prospective

New

deficit the Chancellor of the Exchequer must devise means to meet it. taxes will have to be imposed, or existing taxes augmented. If, on the other hand, there is a prospective surplus, the Chancellor of the Exchequer chooses the particular imposts to be modified or abolished. Even if expenditure and revenue are evenly balanced there is always the prospect of some re-adjustment of the public burdens-a transfer of taxation from one class of the community to another class, from some commodities to other commodities-being announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And as the financial secrets of the Government are never allowed to leak out until they are disclosed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Budget Night' is usually, therefore, a night of surprises.

There are two Committees of the House of Commons for dealing with the national revenue and expenditure which are appointed immediately that the Address in reply to the King's Speech is voted. One is called "Committee of Ways and Means," and the other "Committee of Supply." The Committee of Ways and Means deals with the proposals of the Government for raising by loans, taxes, duties, and imposts the money required for the administration and defence of the State. In other words, it determines how the national revenue shall be raised. The Committee of Supply decides what sums shall be granted to the Crown to meet the requirements of the various State departments. In other words it settles how the national revenue is to be spent. The House, accordingly, goes into Committee of Ways and Means to hear and consider the Budget statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

It is a constitutional rule that every demand for money on behalf of the Crown must originate in a resolution proposed in Committee of Ways and

Means. Therefore, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made his financial statement he moves a series of resolutions providing for the continuance, imposition, remission, or reduction of taxation, which are discussed by the Commitee of Ways and Means, and may be amended or rejected. Even when passed by the Committee they require confirmation by Act of Parliament. To put it in another way, the resolutions agreed to in Committee of Ways and Means are embodied in a Bill, known as the Finance Bill, which has to pass through all the stages prescribed for legislative measures-second reading, Committee, and third reading, and thus the House of Commons is found, long after "Budget Night," discussing over and over again the Budget proposals on one stage or another of the Finance Bill.

Yet any new duties or increased duties on wines, spirits, beer or tobacco, proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, come into operation the morning after he opens his Budget in the House of Commons. That night the necessary instructions to begin levying the new duties or the increased duties forthwith, are posted to the various Customs and Excise centres throughout the Kingdom; and in order to give thesc proceedings an anticipatory authority the resolutions sanctioning the increased duties or the new duties are passed by the Committee of Ways and Means before the adjournment of the House on Budget Night. The imposts, however, are not legalized until the passing of the Finance Act. That alone can give them the force of law. If, therefore, a resolution to which anticipatory effect has been given is subsequently modified in the progress of the Finance Bill through the House of Commons any money collected by the Customs or Excise authorities in excess of the amount to which legislative sanction is ultimately given would have

to be refunded. Such readjustment became necessary in 1885, when the Liberal Government was defeated on the Budget of Mr. Childers, after a resolution had been agreed to increasing the beer duty; and again in 1888, Mr. Goschen being Chancellor of the Exchequer, when a proposal to impose an increased duty on all bottled wines was, before the passing of the Finance Bill, limited to sparkling wines only.

The functions of the second committee for the transaction of financial business, that is the Committee of Supply, are entirely different. It considers the estimates of expenditure presented by the Ministers. The first day the House of Commons resolves itself into Committee of Supply after the assembling of a new Parliament is marked by an interesting event. This is the election of the Chairman of Committees, an official almost as important, if much less conspicuous, than the Speaker, for he presides in Committee of Ways and Means when the Budget is opened and discussed, in Committee of Supply when the estimates are under consideration, as well as in Committee on the clauses of Bills. Since 1853 he takes the chair as DeputySpeaker in the absence of the Speaker. The office is held, like the Speakership, until the dissolution of Parliament, and carries a salary of £2500 per annum (half that of the Speaker), but, unlike the Speakership, there is no official residence and no pension. The absence of formality in the selection of the Chairman is in striking contrast to the elaborate ceremonial associated with the installation of the Speaker.

The appointment rests, like the Speakership, with the House itself, but whereas the election to the Chair is regarded as non-political-the proposer and seconder never being Ministers or ex-Ministers-and is permanent, subject only to formal reappointment at the beginning of each new Parliament,