¢HAP. v] THE GOVERNOR AND THE LAW 251 
The Treasurer of the Colony in a minute of September 18, 
1869.1 thus explained the views of the Cabinet 
Lord Belmore’s justification of himself on the ground of 
these instructions for having assented to the payments in 
the case under consideration is thus conveyed in his Despatch 
to Lord Granville, of 25th March. covering the resolutions 
of the Council. 
Applying these instructions to the present case, which 
differs from the former in so far as this concerns estimates 
in chief and one House of Parliament only—those supple- 
lentary estimates and both Houses—I consider the present 
bo be an ““ unforeseen contingency ”’ of an urgent nature, and 
the course which has been pursued to be “ justifiable ” on 
the ground that it was presumably “sure to be subsequently 
sanctioned, joined to strong grounds of expediency, even 
though short of actual necessity ».’ 
Lord Granville in reply (Despatch 16th June 1869) ex- 
presses himself as follows :— 
"Having reference to the terms of the Duke of Bucking- 
ham’s Despatch of 30th September, I am not prepared to 
disapprove the course which you adopted in authorising the 
payment of certain salaries in anticipation of an Appropria- 
tion Act; but at the same time I think that you have 
somewhat misunderstood the spirit of those instructions, and 
that the mere fact that a certain number of public officers 
would be put to a temporary inconvenience cannot be viewed 
as an unforeseen emergency, as it is a consequence which 
must in the nature of things result from any delay in passing 
an Appropriation Act; nor is it such a case of expediency 
as justifies a violation of law. 
_ But independently of these considerations, the question 
18 settled prospectively by the action of the Legislative 
Council, as I consider it clear that except in case of absolute 
and immediate necessity (such, e.g., as the preservation of 
life) no expenditure of public money should be incurred 
without sanction of law, unless it may be presumed not only 
that both branches of the Legislature will hold the expendi- 
bure itself unobjectionable, but also that they will approve 
of that expenditure being made in anticipation of their 
consent. 
Your Lordship will not therefore be at liberty on any 
future occasion to repeat the step which you have adopted 
in this case’ 
* Parl, Pap., C. 2173, p. 122.