ConstitutroTloVth^ustralia ADELAIDE AND VICINITY If the words tax, rate, duty, or impost" were intended to mean the "proceeds" of "any tax, rate, duty, or impost," they are surplusage, because such proceeds are clearly revenue. It is probable, however, that these words are an example of constitutional "atavism," and a survival from Act to Act of words referring to the old practice of the British Parliament of appropriating specific taxes, etc., to specific purposes. When the consolidated revenue first was established the House of Commons had to pass 4,000' resolutions in committee to get rid of these appropriations of specific taxes. The object and intention of this section was not to define the relationship of the two Houses of Parliament. A study of the history of the section, and the fact that a similar message was required when we had only one House, clearly proves that its original and main object was to preserve the rights of the Crown. It formulates the practice of the House of Commons, in which the ancient theory that the revenue of the country is the revenue of the Crown, and ought not to be approj)riated without the consent of the Crown, is still preserved — as a theory. Parliamentary appropriation of the revenue is a comparatively modern innovation, which has arisen by successive encroachments of the Commons on the prerogatives of the Crown. Originally, in theory as in practice, the three estates of the realm — the Nobility, the Clerics, and the Commons — taxed themselves separately, and granted scutages, aids, and supplies to the Crown, which the Crown expended in the ordinary government of the country (or otherwise), undictated to and untrammelled by the Houses of Parliament. The House of Commons has in England gradually acquired all power over the expenditure of the revenue so raised, which, however, is still theoretically the revenue of the Crown. From this theory the necessity of requiring a message from the Crown recom- mending any appropriation of its revenue arose, and the practice is still continued. The practice has survived after the reality of the theory has died, because it fulfils an important and essential purpose. It gives to that Executive Committee of Parliament called the Ministry the primary initiative of, and great power over, all expenditure ; and very properly so, too, because it is of the greatest importance that the responsibility of controlling expenditure should vest in the same body which is primarily responsible for providing the ways and means and controlling the expenditure of the Province. Money Bills — New Zealand and Queensland cases It has been supposed by some people that the relative power of the two Houses of the South Australian Parliament has been declared and illustrated by two cases which have arisen in Queensland and in New Zealand ; but this is not so. In 1885 a question arose in Queensland in reference to the relative rights and powers of the two Houses concerning Money Bills. The wording of the Queensland Constitution Act is similar to the wording of our Act in reference to this question ; but the Legislative Council of Queensland is a nominated body, and had agreed to the following joint Standing Order: — " In all cases not herein provided for having reference to the joint action of both Houses of Parliament, resort will be had to the rules, powers, and practice
