The Prime Minister, who, with mingled reason and urbanity, usually
excels on occasions of this kind, failed to allay the discontent of many of his own followers. He drew a dis- tinction between Bills founded on a Money Resolution and Bills which merely required a Money Resolution ; and argued that in the former case the terms of both documents must be largely identical. An entirely different defence was put forward by Sir Hugh O'Neill, who is something of an authority on matters of procedure. He pointed out that in the last century amendments were frequently moved to proposals for expenditure but that they almost always came from stern advocates of economy who wished to reduce the burden on the taxpayer; in these days, when the House of Commons had become not the guardian but the despoiler of the public purse, it was impossible to give private members the same latitude. In the end the Attorney-General promised a Select Committee to consider the working of the Standing Order. A welcome concession, but why did it come so late ?
* * * *
Previous page
