No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ministers of the Crown and the British Constitution
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
Notwithstanding the vital importance of the cabinet, it has been one of the anomalies of British government that this institution has heretofore been unknown to English constitutional law. Writers have said correctly that “neither Parliament nor the courts have provided for the cabinet and the prime minister. The whole system of cabinet government is founded not on laws but on practices …” However, this view can no longer be held. In the session of Parliament concluded recently, an act was passed which laid down new principles pertaining to the executive. The cabinet, the prime minister, and the ministers of the crown have at last been recognized by statute and have been given a status in British constitutional law.
- Type
- Foreign Governments and Politics
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1937
References
1 Jennings, W. I., Cabinet Government (New York, 1936), p. 1Google Scholar. Cf. Anson, W. R., Law and Custom of the Constitution, rev.Keith, A. B. (Oxford, 1935), pp. 12–13Google Scholar; also statement of SirSimon, John before the House of Commons on April 12, 1937 (Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 322)Google Scholar.
2 Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937. I Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6.
3 Parl. Debs., Vol. 321. The bill was based upon recommendation of select committees which reported in 1920 and 1930. See Parl. Debs., Vol. 322, c. 639. House of Commons.
4 Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, clause 1 and part I of schedule 1. These salaries and others mentioned in the act are subject to other provisions of the act.
5 Clause 1 and schedule 1, part II.
6 Clause 1 and schedule 1, part III.
7 Clause 1 and schedule 2 provide for salaries as follows: Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, £3,000; Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Secretary for Mines, and Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, £2,000; parliamentary under-secretaries to the Admiralty, Air Ministry, Board of Education, Board of Trade, Burma Office, Colonial Office, Dominions Office, Foreign Office, Home Office, India Office, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labor, Ministry of Transport, Scottish Office, and the War Office, £1,500; and the Assistant Postmaster-General, £1,200. The act also stipulates that “if and so long as there are two parliamentary under-secretaries to the Foreign Office, to the Admiralty, or the War Office, the annual salary payable to each of the two parliamentary under-secretaries may be of such amount as may be determined by the Treasury, but so that the aggregate of the annual salaries payable to both of them does not exceed three thousand pounds.”
8 Clause 1.
9 This portion of clause three applies particularly to the following: Lord President of the Council; Lord Privy Seal; Postmaster-General; First Commissioner of Works; Minister of Pensions; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and to “any Minister of the Crown to whom section two of the Reëlection of Ministers Act, 1919, applies, if … his salary as such is less than five thousand pounds a year.”
10 Clause 3. See Sir John Simon's statement in the Commons, April 12, 1937. Parl. Debs., Vol. 322.
11 Clause 4. One who “before or after the passing of this Act, has been Prime Minister and has as First Lord of the Treasury taken the official oath prescribed by section five of the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868, shall be entitled to a pension of two thousand pounds a year.”
12 Clause 4.
13 Clause 10.
14 Clause 7.
15 Clause 8.
16 The statement of Sir John Simon before the Commons on April 12. Parl. Debs., Vol. 322.
17 Clause 9. The 17 offices are above, in the list of those entitled to salaries of £5,000.
18 Clause 9. To be found above, in the enumeration of those entitled to salaries of £3,000.
19 Clause 9. These posts are indicated in footnote 7, supra.
20 Clause 9. It is further provided that if any person included in the above categories “sits or votes in the House of Commons at a time when he is not entitled to do so by virtue of this section, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five hundred pounds for each day on which he so sits or votes.”
21 Parl. Debs., Vol. 322.
22 See the remarks of Mr. Mander, ibid.
23 House of Commons, April 12. Parl. Debs., Vol. 322.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Repeatedly during the debate, members showed their displeasure with the allegedly high incomes received by the law officers of the crown through salaries and fees. Mr. Baldwin replied to the critics by reminding them that this was not the time to pronounce upon the merits of the existing practice where law officers were concerned. See, particularly, the debates on April 12 and 28. Parl. Debs., Vols. 322, 323. See also the debate on June 3, as reported in the London Times, June 4, 1937. Sir Kingsley Wood promised for his cabinet colleagues that the matter of compensation for law officers would be given further consideration. Parl. Debs., Vol. 323.
27 Parl. Debs., Vol. 323. House of Commons, April 28.
28 Parl. Debs., Vol. 323.
29 Ibid. House of Commons, April 29.
30 House of Commons, April 12. Parl. Debs., Vol. 322.
31 Parl. Debs., Vol. 323. House of Commons, April 28.
32 Parl. Debs., Vol. 322.
33 House of Commons, June 3. Reported in the Times, June 4, 1937.
34 In the Commons, April 12. Parl. Debs., Vol. 322.
35 George Lansbury, former leader of the Labor opposition, was outspoken in his criticism of this proposal. His argument was that all members of the House ought to be on an equal basis, and that no member, regardless of his position, should be given more money than any other member. See Parl. Debs., Vol. 323, c. 643 ff.
36 Parl. Debs., Vol. 323. April 29, 1937.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.
39 See the remarks of Captain Balfour and Mr. Pickthorn, April 12, 1937. Parl. Debs., Vol. 322.
40 See the remarks of Mr. Kingsley Griffith, April 29, 1937. Parl. Debs., Vol. 323.
41 Houae of Commons, June 3. Reported in the Times, June 4, 1937.
42 House of Lords, June 21. London Times, June 22, 1937.
43 Ibid.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.