The only possible cause Of regret was • the subject-
matter of the- criticisms directed ' last week against Clause 120. This clause empowers the Minister to modify the provisions of the Act where this may be " necessary " in order to make the Act work. It is true that Mr. Chamberlain had altered the wording of the Clause—substituting "-necessary" for "expedient "- but he did not satisfy *everyone that he had removed its • offensiveness. The Constitutional habit in this country has been for Statutes to be administered in accordance with what was understood to be their precise meaning, and when there was a doubt as to the interpretation the Courts had to decide. Mr. Chamberlain pleads that there are already at least eight instances in which a Minister has been given the power to modify •a Statute: This is done by Order, and the Order has to be tabled in Parliament. • It is, he says, for Parliament to keep watch, and Parliament has ample opportunities for doing so. An Order, however, may remain for a long time almost unnoticed on the table ; it is only a quick and attentive mind which may detect its significance ; and even when the quick -and attentive mind is on the spot the protection is slight. The whole subject is very difficult. Talk about reviving the dis- pensing powers of the Stuarts seems to us irrelevant, for ours •Social Services have created an entirely new situation: The modern Acts, which present ticklish problems every day of the year, can hardly be under the unending judg- ments of the Courts.
Previous page
