MR. GLADSTONE, in moving that the Speaker do now leave the Chair, said: Sir, I think that it would be in accordance with the course usually pursued by the House on these occasions that we should go into Committee on the Vote of Credit, and that upon getting into Committee I should propose the Vote and state to the House such considerations as I think bear upon the question whether the House should grant the Vote or not. I regret that the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) proposes to raise as a preliminary question the division of the Vote of Credit, and to ask the House to affirm that the expenses on account of the Soudan Expedition shall be considered separately from those on account of military and naval expenditure. Having this proposal before, what I intend to do is as follows—to state very briefly indeed the reasons why I hope that Motion may not be addressed to the House. I may succeed in that object, or the hon. Member may persist in pressing the Motion on the House. If the debate should become general and broader questions are raised, and there is a desire for further information as to the general merits of the Vote, I should have no alternative but to state to the House what I had intended to say on the Vote itself. At present, I will only speak on the question of the division of the Vote. I have no hesitation in admitting that where two Votes are proposed in the nature of Votes of Credit for Services which are not only distinct, but which are likely to remain distinct until they are respectively accomplished, the proper course is 826 to submit those sums as separate Votes of Credit, and to ask a separate authority from the House to deal with each, so that the money granted for each may be applied to that for which it was granted, and not for the other. But the consideration which has led us to submit this sum in one Vote is of an entirely practical character. It is that, although in their apparent objects these Votes are separate, yet in their possible application they are not separate. I have before stated to the House that under no circumstances would the Government take upon itself to apply to the Soudan Expedition the Votes we are about to ask under the head of special preparations; but I reserved entirely, and I hope the House may approve our reserving, the discretion to apply the money taken for the Soudan Services to purposes which would fall under the head of special preparations. The very ground on which we make our proposal with regard to the Votes for the Soudan Services is that the grant admits, and even, to some extent, contemplates, the application of a portion of the money for what we now know as special preparations. Under those circumstances, it would be very inconvenient that we should be tied either to spend in the Soudan money not required for purposes in the Soudan, or else that we should be under the necessity, before we could use any of these moneys granted by Parliament for the special preparations, which we deem to be of the highest material importance, of again giving Notice, again raising debate, and again proposing a separate Vote of Credit for the purposes for which we ask special preparation. Well, Sir, that appears to us to be a reasonable view of the case; and, if it is not, I must put it to the House that if it is not distinctly unreasonable in the view of the House, nothing could be more inexpedient than that, upon a question which is one of practical convenience rather than of distinct principle, we should go to an issue with anything like lengthened discussion, and with division of Party forces in face of the world, and at the present moment, and in the present circum-stances of the Empire. I thought. Sir, that I had pointed out that a perfectly unexceptionable way of raising the discussion was reserved to any Gentleman by moving the diminution of the Vote 827 in the Committee; but I do not dwell on that. I hope the House will not see ground for entertaining even that Motion. I sincerely hope that there will not be a disposition to press the Amendment now before us. It would certainly be our duty to resist it; and I think it would be far more convenient that we should be allowed to go into Committee, and that I should be allowed to make my statement. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote), if he saw-cause, or any other, would then either demand time or take whatever course he pleases; but we should have, at any rate, a single question before us, and we should not be divided at the very threshold of the matter by discussion on a point of procedure, with respect to which I think it is hardly to be doubted that we have reserved to ourselves reasonable discretion in asking the House to vote this gum in such a way that moneys granted primâ facie for the purposes of the Soudan may, should it appear to be practicable, be applied for the purposes of the special preparations. I move that you, Sir, now leave the Chair.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, in rising to move—
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Vote of Credit to be submitted in Committee of Supply on account of the Soudan Expedition should be considered separately from the Vote of Credit to be submitted on account of other Military and Naval expenditure,said, he could assure his right hon. Friend that in putting his Amendment on the Paper he was not at all actuated by Party motives. Nothing of the kind was contemplated. He had no particular personal desire to press his Motion. In order to ascertain whether it was necessary to take any preliminary objections to the Vote, he had consulted the authorities of the House. His only motive in submitting his Amendment was to secure, if possible, a clear and intelligible discussion of the two very different matters proposed to be submitted to the judgment of the House. He objected very much to the Votes being so proposed, because he believed it involved an entire departure from a long line of precedents, and might be 828 fraught with mischievous consequences. There had been, since the Crimean War, an almost uninterrupted series of Votes of Credit; and every single one of them, down to this one, was taken for a separate Service. The present proposal of the Government involved a departure. He instanced the Votes of Credit for South Africa, for the Abyssinian War, and the Vote of Credit in 1870, when there was war in Europe. Votes of Credit in those days were given under rules much less stringent than existed now. His main contention, however, was that the Vote for the Soudan should not be a Vote of Credit at all, but a Supplementary Estimate. The Vote for £11,000,000 was divided into two parts, and these were again sub-divided. As to the £4,500,000 for the Soudan, after making allowances for all the demands that the Prime Minister had enumerated, including even the Nile steamers, there was a balance of £2,750,000. This was for military expenditure; but there was to be no expedition to Khartoum, and there were to be no further operations in the Soudan. It would be easy for the able official accountants to give an approximate idea of what proportion of this balance would be needed for the cost of the occupation of Suakin by the British or Indian troops. Then, as to the £6,500,000 for special preparations. The naval expenditure was to consist of £2,500,000, and the Prime Minister told them how that was to be spent—in torpedoes and guns for the Navy. Now, what the Prime Minister was asking for was that not only should the £4,000,000 under "special preparations" be appropriated to military expenditure, but that, without any definite authorization, he should be able to draw upon the £2,750,000 nominally taken for the Soudan, but which it was calculated would never be wanted for the Soudan. Thus, a sum of £6,750,000 was asked for for the Army, to be disposed of in any way the Government liked. Why? Because their mismanagement of the Army administration had been so grievous and glaring that it was the only way they could possibly find for covering the deficits in the Army Estimates. By the alteration of the rule applicable to this matter, the Government had been able to elude financial scrutiny during the past few years. Upon the authority of the Accountant 829 General, he could state that when once a Vote of Credit had been agreed to the House parted with all its control over the expenditure of the amount of that Vote. So much was this the case, that in 1879, in a letter printed at the end of the Appropriation Accounts of that year, the Lords of the Treasury said—Votes of Credit are not current only for the year in which they are taken, and my Lords make it a rule to substitute for them wherever possible Supplementary Estimates. These latter leave less discretion to the spending Departments.In 1879, when a Vote of Credit was agreed to in reference to the war in South Africa, the Comptroller General was unable to certify that the amount of money voted for that war had been actually expended for that purpose, and not for general purposes. From a statement made by the Prime Minister, it appeared to be perfectly competent for the Government to make a reasonably close approximation to the expenditure which still remained to be incurred in connection with the Soudan. The Government had, therefore, all the materials before them for proposing a Supplementary Estimate instead of a Vote of Credit. The presenting of such an Estimate would be in accordance with the advanced financial arrangements of the country, with the strong recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, and with the rules laid down by the Treasury itself, and to be observed by the spending Departments when asking for sums on account like the present. The Prime Minister had told the House last week that he would give them an assurance that no portion of the Vote of Credit to be taken for the Soudan Service should be appropriated for the other Service. He, for one, feared that the language of the right hon. Gentleman on the present occasion would somewhat detract from that feeling of confidence with which hon. Members might otherwise have been inclined to look back to the right hon. Gentleman's utterances of last week. Before this question was disposed of, he trusted that three right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were experienced Parliamentarians—some known for their political consistency, and some less remarkable for that quality—would take the trouble to look over the speeches 830 which they had severally delivered in a famous debate in 1878. The right hon. Gentlemen to whom he referred were the Members for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), and for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and the present Prime Minister. On the occasion to which he referred, the present Opposition brought forward a proposal similar to that now introduced —namely, a Vote of £6,000,000—to enable the Government of the day to make a show, as was thought right and proper, before the world, in view of certain hostilities which they anticipated would occur. He did not know that he should put the House to the trouble of dividing upon his Amendment, because he believed that the end he had in view would be fully satisfied by his drawing attention to the technical question. He had taken the course he had done because he was somewhat afraid that it might be ruled that the Motion he had placed upon the Paper could not be put from the Chair, and that it could not be brought forward in Committee of Supply. He begged to move that, in the opinion of that House, it was desirable that the Vote of Credit to be submitted in Committee of Supply on account of the Soudan Expedition should be considered separately from the Vote of Credit to be submitted on account of other military and naval expenditure.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he begged to second the Amendment. He understood that the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) who had moved it did not desire to go to a division, nor did he (Sir Henry Holland) desire to do so; but he seconded the Motion as a protest against the course—the unprecedented course—adopted by the Government in moving one Vote of Credit for two distinct services, one of which should have been provided for by a Supplemental Estimate. This question of Votes of Credit and Supplemental Estimates had many times been discussed in the House and before Public Accounts Committees, the object, of course, being to give to the House as large a power as possible over the expenditure, and full means of ascertaining and checking it; and in 1880 the point was closely considered by the Public Accounts Committee which sat in that year, and he would venture to read to the House one paragraph of their Report— 831
Your Committee have arrived at the opinion that in all cases of special service, where the Department can make a fairly definite Estimate of the Service, and of the general head under which the proposed expenditure will mainly fall, it is desirable that a Supplementary Estimate should be presented, as in the case of the Indian Native troops; and that Votes of Credit should, as a rule, he only resorted to when from the nature of the services to be performed it is very difficult, if not impossible, to give any fairly approximate Estimate of the amount required.Now, the hon. Member who moved this Amendment with so much ability had shown beyond all question that it was perfectly possible to make a very fair Estimate for the Soudan expenses; and a Supplementary Estimate should, therefore, have been presented, and not a Vote of Credit asked for. He was quite aware that in many eases a Vote of Credit was absolutely necessary, and there was less objection to such a Vote now than there used to be, as the expenditure under it was so much more closely watched; but the feared that a great blow would be struck at Votes of Credit if proceedings of this kind were to be sanctioned. All precedent pointed to this—that a Vote of Credit should be confined to one special and separate Service. He certainly had understood the Prime Minister to say some days ago that though this Vote of Credit applied to two Services, the money asked for in respect of one Service should not be applied to the other; but it now appeared that the money asked for for the Soudan Expedition might be applied for the Special Preparation Service.
MR. GLADSTONEThat, Sir, is a point of very great importance upon which I do not wish to be misunderstood. I will venture to say that I can hardly have been misreported in the very careful words I used on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I then gave a most distinct pledge that we should not apply to the Soudan any of the money voted for the special preparations. I gave no pledge whatever in the converse sense. On the contrary, we have always stated that our policy was to hold the Forces in the Soudan available for service elsewhere.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he was sure the Prime Minister would acquit him of any wish to misrepresent what had been said. He had only stated what he had understood; and he must add that when the Prime Minister said that the Soudan money might be applied 832 to the other Service, it was not a great stretch of imagination to suppose that the converse treatment of the money voted would also be allowed. He would not detain the House any longer, but he ventured to think that this kind of Vote of Credit for two Services was without precedent, and should not be allowed to pass without a strong protest.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Vote of Credit to be submitted in Committee of Supply on account of the Soudan Expedition should be considered separately from the Vote of Credit to be submitted on account of other Military and Naval expenditure,"—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI do not feel that I am competent to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in regard to the financial argument of which he made use; but if the House should desire that this question should be fully discussed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others will deal with that part of the subject. I will now endeavour to stale to the House the extreme inconvenience, amounting almost to impracticability, which would ensue from following the course pursued by the hon. Member for Queen's County. Probably the House will be of opinion that the hon. Member has not been very successful in quoting precedents. He referred to the year 1878, when he said there were complications in Europe and in South Africa; but I did not understand him to say that separate Votes were taken in that year. Even if that were the case, the House will perceive that the question of that year was altogether distinct from the present one. In regard to the alleged precedent of 1870, the hon. Member did not say that in that case two separate Votes of Credit were moved. The hon. Member only referred to the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts, which stated that the extremely irregular and objectionable practice had been followed in 1874 of applying sums in the Vote of Credit for the Abyssinian War Votes long before in the payment 833 of the liabilities of that year. Altogether, the hon. Member's argument appears to me to be rather against Votes of Credit than an argument in support of the particular proposition that this Vote of Credit ought to be divided into two parts. Before we laid this Vote of Credit upon the Table we considered the alternative measures of procedure, and we adopted deliberately the course we have adopted, without any political object whatever, and with a view to the financial convenience of the Services and of the War Office. We certainly did not adopt that course with the view of withholding any information from the House. In the statement accompanying the Vote of Credit, the Government has placed the House in possession of as full information as they are able to give. Neither did they adopt this course in order to prevent the House raising any issue it chose, for that that could easily be done is abundantly evidenced by the Notice of Motion given by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The reasons which influenced the Government are briefly these. The general preparations determined upon by the Government contemplate the employment elsewhere of a very large portion of the Forces either now in the Soudan, or which may have been raised for the operations there. The extra cost of the Force which would thus be released would cease to be a charge in the Soudan operations. Large quantities of supplies and stores have already been ordered and despatched to Egypt. So long as the troops are engaged in Egypt these stores, although the troops may be available for service elsewhere, will continue to be charged for the preparations made for the Soudan. It will be impassible, under the system of the War Office accounts, to break up these charges in the accounts and to distinguish the part chargeable to the garrisons left in Egypt and the troops employed in the Soudan from the charges for the Forces available for service elsewhere. When the accounts of the Army Expenditure of the year are completed, an approximate statement will be made in the form of an Estimate, showing as far as can be done the charges incurred for the two services; but I am informed by the financial authorities of the War Office, it will be impossible to support that statement by vouchers in 834 the way a Parliamentary account is supported so as to satisfy the Auditor General. For instance, the claims of the contractor for the supply of meat at a station is for the quantity delivered in bulk to the Commissariat. No distinction is made between that to be consumed by the Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery, or Militia; much less is there any distinction of the claims for the food of those men who may have been added to the Forces as the result of either the general preparations or the Soudan operations. Similarly as regards stores, the reserves of small arm ammunition have been largely diminished by the issues to these troops, and orders have been given to make up these reserves. It is not possible to distinguish in the charges for wages in the accounts of the Royal Laboratory the extra wages due respectively to these two causes. For the reason therefore that a separate account, in the proper sense of the word, cannot be kept of the expenditure as occasioned by the two causes, one Vote has been asked for; but the Paper circulated with the Vote may be taken as fairly distributing the charge, on the assumption that all extra expenditure upon that portion of the Force in Egypt, which the Government has determined to with draw as soon as possible, shall, so long as it may remain in Egypt, be regarded as chargeable against general preparations. There are other reasons which prevent the division of the Vote. They are, no doubt, reasons of a highly technical character; but they are the reasons which have influenced the financial advisers, and I doubt whether the requirements of the law can be met if the House were to insist upon the proposed division of the Vote. If no necessity for general preparations existed, if the troops could be brought back from the Soudan, if the establishment which had been increased on account of the Soudan War could at once be reduced to its normal strength, if the provision of supply for the Soudan Expedition could at once be stopped, the money necessary for the House to provide on account of the Soudan Expedition would be near the amount stated in the Papers presented to Parliament; but, in the present circumstances, no such process will take place. The troops who are employed and who are necessary to be employed in the Soudan, will not be brought home. They will be 835 held available either in Egypt or in any other station which may be thought necessary for general service. Supplies for their use will not be stopped, but, on the contrary, increased. Considering, therefore, that the two operations are so closely and inextricably bound together, it appears to me absolutely impossible, and would tend rather to the confusion of the House, and to diminish rather than to increase the real control which the House has over the military expenditure of the country if the course proposed by the hon. Member were taken. I trust the House will not be disposed to agree to the proposal of the hon. Member, but will accept the assurance of the Government that this course has been taken, not by any means with the intention of diminishing the control of the House over the expenditure, or of hiding any information from the House which we have the power to give, but simply from the cause I have stated of rendering the money voted by Parliament most available for the general service of the country, in whatever part of the world it may be required.
§ MR. CHAPLINI hope the House will permit me to say half-a-dozen words in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). I trust myself that the Amendment of the hon. Member will be something more than a protest on this occasion. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for War and the Prime Minister have both informed the House that there is no great matter of principle involved in the question. I am not, therefore, without some hope that the Government will yield to what appears to me to be the exceedingly legitimate and reasonable proposition of the hon. Member; and if the Government are not disposed to take that course, I hope, for my own part, that the hon. Member will press his Motion to a division. I confess that I was much surprised myself at the form in which this Vote was originally presented to the House, and it seems to me that the Amendment of the hon. Member simply places it on its natural and its legitimate footing. What is the position of the House in regard to this question? The Vote which is now before us deals with two questions, not only separate in them-selves, and which, therefore, as the 836 Prime Minister said, ought to be treated as distinct, but with regard to which we may hold, and many of us do hold, very different opinions as to the course we ought to pursue. Now, as to the first question—that which relates to military preparations—if the Government come forward on their own responsibility and say that this Vote is required for the safety of the Empire, which under their guidance has recently been greatly in peril, I apprehend that there will be very little difference of opinion, and, without hesitation, I have no doubt the House of Commons will grant whatever sums are demanded for securing the safety of the Empire. But with regard to the Vote for the Soudan, that Vote appears to me to stand on a totally different footing altogether. Now, I think there is a great deal to be said on the question of the Soudan, and the Votes which the Government are asking for that Expedition now. I am not going to enter into details upon the question; but before this Vote is granted for the Soudan, the Government will certainly be called upon to reconcile the statement of their policy announced a short time ago with the totally different attitude they are adopting at the present moment. The House will assuredly require some further explanation with regard to the way in which it was induced to sanction the money for the construction of the Suakin-Berber Railway. The House will remember what occurred on that occasion. Many of us, and myself among the number, always regarded the construction of the Suakin-Berber Railway as all moonshine from the first. But what happened? When the noble Lord asked for a Supplementary Estimate on a former occasion, he said that the very first thing Lord Wolseley wanted, after the fall of Khartoum, was the despatch of an expedition to Suakin. And on his responsibility, as a Minister of the Crown, he came forward and told us that the railway was absolutely essential to the safety of the Expedition and the Forces under Lord Wolseley. We now find that the railway is not to be made to Berber, as I certainly thought it never would be, and we shall require some explanation from the Government before this Vote for the Soudan is granted. I think it will probable be the case that while the House will grant whatever money is required, it may be 837 necessary for us to accompany that grant of money with something like a Vote of Censure on the conduct of the Government for the way in which, as far as I can ascertain, they have been making ducks and drakes of the money of the British taxpayer. Our position is this. We desire to do nothing whatsoever to stand for a moment in the way of granting money to the Government for any military preparations that may be necessary to secure the safety of the Empire; but at the same time we are determined to exercise the full right of criticism, and if necessary of censure, with regard to the way, as far as we can gather, the money will be expended in the Soudan. Under the circumstances, I would throw out a suggestion of this nature—that the money should be divided as the hon. Member proposes —that the Vote for military preparations should be taken first; and that having been done, and the statement of the Government having been made in reference to the Soudan, that the debate on the money necessary for the Soudan should be adjourned for further consideration.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he hoped that unless the Government had a better case to put forward they might find it convenient to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. He did not think he had ever heard a weaker and more confused case put before the House than that stated by the noble Lord. The Government had carefully abstained from committing themselves as to their policy in the Soudan; and until they announced their intention to abandon operations in that country it was manifest that the amount to be expended there should form the subject of a distinct Vote. The Prime Minister had deprecated a discussion of this question in the face of Europe with a great appearance of division in their counsels; the right hon. Gentleman was anxious that they should present to Europe an united front. He maintained that the Government were themselves provoking that division of opinion by resisting the Motion of the hon. Member. What was the inevitable result of the course which the Government were taking? When the Speaker was got out of the Chair the Committee would begin to discuss, first, the Soudan Vote, then the Afghan Vote, next the Soudan Vote again, and then the Afghan Vote again, and, 838 lastly, the military preparations. Hon. Members on the Opposition side who were prepared to support the Government in any course they thought necessary for defending the honour of the country in Asia would be forced against their will to appear as critics of the Government when dealing with the Soudan. It was the action of the Government which compelled them to import into the controversy in Committee of Supply those questions on which there were acute differences of opinion between the two sides of the House. It was really a case of "tacking" on the part of the Government. The Government knew perfectly well that the Opposition were prepared to support them, and to do all they could to help them out of the muddle into which they had got in Afghanistan. They knew very well that if they were to divide this Vote, giving a Soudan half and an Afghan half, the Opposition would be unanimous as to the latter half, whereas on the Soudan portion there would be vehement Party controversy. It was to prevent the country seeing in the clearest manner how they had again "tacked" in regard to their policy of two months ago that the Government had included these two entirely different Votes in one. He hoped the Government would even now think fit to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member He could assure the Prime Minister that if he would do so he would adopt the best course of avoiding that appearance of division in Committee of Supply in the face of Europe which he was so anxious to prevent.
§ MR. W. FOWLERsaid, that the noble Lord, in the course of his speech, had stated that there might be money, previously voted for stores in the Soudan, but not expended on actual service in the Soudan, which would be in hand to be expended for other purposes not mentioned—that was to say, for purposes mentioned in the Vote of £6,500,000. They were asked to vote in a lump money which was really going for two entirely different purposes. Now, although he did not believe that the Government were actuated by the motive attributed to them by hon. Gentlemen opposite, he objected to the idea of money being voted for one purpose and then being used for another. Under the French Empire the system of virements grew up by which enormous sums 839 were voted in one way and applied in another, involving immense abuse. He hoped that in this country they would not enter upon that course.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI wish, Sir, to support the observations that have been made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler). From his experience in such matters, I think the House would be justified in attaching very considerable weight to any remark falling from the hon. Member on a financial question. I must say, after what we have heard from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, it appears to me to be an extraordinary thing that the arrangements of the War Office should be in such a condition that it is utterly unable to take an accurate account of the stores and provisions of various kinds that may be re-shipped on the Coast of Egypt and transported elsewhere. I believe there is no person engaged in any great operation in this country who would not be prepared to insist that the charge connected with the employment of any number of men and any quantity of materials in any particular service in which he was concerned should be properly computed and ascertained. But I object to the proposal of the Government, because it appears to me to be an entirely new departure. We have had Supplementary Estimates and Votes of Credit to meet a national emergency before; but I do not remember that any single Vote of Credit has been taken to cover the expense of two entirely distinct objects. Can it be necessary that there shall be one Vote of Credit to deal with two totally different emergencies?—for that is the gist of the complaint which is now made. There is one point on which I would particularly insist, and that is that when a service was foreseen, when it became perfectly well known to Her Majesty's Government that troops would be required, that provisions would have to be furnished, and that a railway would have to be made, and when they asked for a Supplementary Estimate, as they did in the last financial year, for purposes in Egypt, they were bound to include in the ordinary Estimates of the year the expenditure which they contemplated and had decided upon. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for War told us that contracts had been entered into, that large payments had 840 been made and liabilities incurred, and all actually without the vote of Parliament. Parliament has not sanctioned these estimates or these liabilities. They are included in this Vote of Credit. If the late Government had attempted to do anything of this kind, great financial authorities on the other side of the House would have told us at once that we were violating all the Rules of Parliament and defeating the proper control which Parliament is entitled to exercise over the national finances, and thereby over the enterprizes in which the Government may embark. I say that if a portion of this money has been paid, if these engagements have been entered into, Parliament ought to have been informed in the ordinary and regular way; they ought to have been included in the Estimates laid before the House in February last; and a proper opportunity would thus have been afforded for discussion. But I object strongly to our being asked in this way to make provision for two distinct services in one Vote of Credit, thus depriving the House of the power of adequately discussing those objects separately, and taking from hon. Members the power of protesting as effectually as they desire to do against one portion of the Vote while they wish to support another.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTMy right hon. Friend at the head of the Government took pains the other day to explain the principle applicable to this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Member for Cambridge say—"Here are two Votes for two absolutely separate objects, which have no connection or dependence the one upon the other." That is not an accurate statement of the fact. If it were, I should entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I accept altogether his financial doctrine on that subject. But the very basis of the statement of the Government which has already been made to the House is that these two matters are not separate, but that they have to a certain degree a dependence the one upon the other, and that the proposals that have been made with reference to the Soudan have relation to the position of the Empire in other parts of the world. Therefore, the whole foundation of the right hon. Gentleman's argument fails, because the two things are not distinct, but to a considerable 841 degree dependent on each other. My right hon. Friend at the head the Government stated with reference to the Vote of Credit and with reference to the Soudan that certain operations might be undertaken or might not be undertaken in the Soudan according to the pressure of the necessities of the Empire elsewhere. Well, it is obvious to anybody who considers that proposition that there are future contingencies under which the releasing of the Forces in the Soudan—I think that was the phrase employed—for service elsewhere may be greater or may be less. The consequence is that the exigency of the demand for the Vote in respect to the Soudan may be more urgent and larger in one contingency than in another; and therefore it may be possible that the sum asked for the Soudan may not be under the circumstances entirely wanted to be expended in the Soudan. And here I am not alluding to the past expenditure, which alone the right hon. Gentleman referred to in his remarks, for stores and matters of that kind, but to the expenditure which may or may not take place in future. If that be so, and if the policy be such as I have described, is it not most reasonable that if by releasing Forces in the Soudan you do employ those Forces, or have them at your disposal elsewhere, you should have the means, if so it be, to appropriate such surplus as may remain alter the Soudan Vote to purposes elsewhere? That is the extent and the only extent of the transfer of moneys now proposed; and the two objects are not independent of each other, but have relation one to the other. That entirely disposes of the objection of the hon. Member for Cambridge, and therefore the question of virements does not arise in this case. It is very desirable that we should at all events come to an early decision on this point. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) is not always charitable in his interpretation of the motives of the Government. I am very willing to deal with facts. The hon. Member always knows our motives, and it always seems to him that they are the worst possible. He thinks that our object in making this proposal is not that which we have avowed, and which is patent on the face of the Vote—namely, that if there be a surplus available from the Soudan it should be applied to the ge- 842 neral purposes of the defence of the Empire, but that we desire to evade discussion and to escape the Vote of Censure which the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, with his authority with his Party, has been good enough to announce in the present juncture of affairs. Surely, however, if we desire to evade discussion in regard to the Soudan, we could not do it. When we go into Committee on tin's Vote, it will be perfectly open to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire to refuse all moneys for the Soudan as he seems to desire.
§ MR. CHAPLINThe right hon. Gentleman has evidently misunderstood me. I said I would do nothing whatever that would stand in the way of the voting of money for special preparations necessary for the safety of the Empire, but that the two things were totally distinct, and it might become a duty to propose a Vote of Censure in regard to affairs in the Soudan.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI do not object to the hon. Member moving a Vote of Censure if he thinks it is a favourable moment. By all means let him do it to-morrow if he likes. But I was answering the hon. Member for Hertford, who alleged that we wish to evade discussion in respect to the Soudan. We could not evade it if we wished, which we do not; and there will be every facility for the hon. Member for Hertford to discuss the question of the Soudan on this Vote. He can say what he likes upon it, and he can refuse the money which is asked for.
MR. GORSTsaid, he thought that it was a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had made the speech which he had just made, because it was a most unfortunate thing that Her Majesty's Government and the Members of Her Majesty's Government should endeavour to make it appear that there was in that House on that night any difference of opinion upon the main matter before them. He thought that it was a great pity that there had been any controversy at all upon it. It had been caused by the Home Secretary and the Members of the Government who, instead of confining that controversy to the technical question raised by the hon. Member for Queen's County, had endeavoured to give it a wider scope, and to make it appear as if the hon. Member for Mid 843 Lincolnshire had desired to pass a Vote of Censure on Her Majesty's Government. The fault was entirely that of the Government. The Government wished to propose in the House two Votes for purposes really distinct. They knew that one would be granted by the House without any difference of opinion at all, and as to which it was most important that that unanimity of the House of Commons should go forth to Europe to-morrow. The Government knew that there was another Vote on which differences of opinion must arise, and they had deliberately mixed up these two, and it was they who were to blame if there was any want of unanimity shown. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had told them to wait till the matter was before Committee of Supply; but no one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that it was impossible really to raise the question there except by moving that the Chairman leave the Chair. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that any Member on that side of the House would take the responsibility of moving the reduction of this Vote? They knew the sort of speech which would be made by the Prime Minister. It was only at this time that the proceedings of the Government could be called in question. Her Majesty's Government had chosen to fly in the face of Treasury Orders, of the Committee of Public Accounts, of the practice of the House of Commons, and of all precedents that had ever been set. He thought that with regard to this Motion the Government would have been in a better position without the speech of the Home Secretary. For his own part, he entirely disagreed with what had been said by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War as to the joining of the expenditure which had been incurred with that to be incurred. It appeared now from the speech of the Home Secretary that there was a reason for mixing them up, and it was a serious one, which the House could not help taking note of. It appeared from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government were still halting between two opinions, and that they were in the future intending to incur expenditure with reference to the Soudan, as to which they had not made up their minds whether it was to be strictly 844 Soudan expenditure or general expenditure. He had ventured to object two months ago to the expenditure of money and the slaughter of Arabs without any distinct policy being stated. His arguments had then been ridiculed by the Home Secretary and other Members of the Government; but since then the slaughter which he had predicted had taken place. The time had now at least come when there should be no doubt in the minds of Her Majesty's Government. If the Home Secretary was really speaking the mind of the Government in this matter, and if there was any doubt or hesitation in their minds as to how the Vote was to be spent, it was most essential that they should have a more certain voice than that of the Home Secretary before the House of Commons should be asked to do that which it was perfectly ready to do—namely to place in the hands of Her Majesty's Government ample funds for the purpose of making special preparations in the present condition of affairs.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in challenging somebody to propose a Vote of Censure, reminded him of one of Dickens's attorneys who had shown a touching anxiety to be kicked before witnesses. He could not but think that the provocative bearing of the Home Secretary was singularly inappropriate in what should have been a business discussion. It had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that the money asked for in this Vote was for a double purpose. He failed entirely to understand the reasons for the extraordinary reticence on the part of the Government and their mysterious references to special purposes. It appeared to him that this was the same policy as that of the fabled ostrich; it was an elaborate pretence of hiding what could not be hidden. The conduct of the Government gave too much reason for the suspicion that they were trying to evade inquiry into their Soudan policy, and it would provoke the proposal of a Motion in Committee which would plainly and distinctly set their Soudan expenditure upon one side for the special examination of the House.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI wish to say a few words especially to the Prime Minister. It appears to me 845 that the sense of the House in this matter is all very much in one way. I have heard a good many speeches in favour of the separation of the Vote, and the absolute silence of hon. Members behind the Treasury Bench shows that they have also felt the force of the observations which have been made. For my own part, I feel greatly the force of these observations; and though I do not go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) seems to have done in implying that there is an intention on their part of tacking, yet the way in which the Vote is proposed is a way in which the stronger case will carry the weaker. I am unwilling to be put in a position in which we are not to get a full discussion of that part of the Vote which relates to the Soudan. There is a practical unanimity with regard to the special preparations Vote. We have not the same unanimity with regard to the conduct and views of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the Soudan; and before that Vote is passed it is probable that the House will desire to have some more definite and clear assurances of the policy of the Government with regard to the Soudan. We have been waiting until a proper occasion shall arise —which I suppose is to-night—to learn what the policy of the Government is with regard to the Soudan. Now we are placed in this difficulty, that we can only hear the statement of the Prime Minister immediately before we are asked to vote money. I wish, under the circumstances, to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will think it possible to meet the objections which have been raised by making a division of the Vote itself, and proposing first that part relating to special preparations and afterwards that relating to the Soudan?
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman will perhaps allow me to correct him in the supposition that I was about to make a lengthened statement on this subject while the Speaker is in the Chair. My intention has all along been to make that statement in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that he will suffer some great disadvantage from a combination of these two services in one Vote; and he seems to think that it is in my power to relieve him from that dilemma by the course he suggested, which he apparently 846 thought would not necessarily involve any fundamental difficulty in the plans of the Government. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is in error in both those suppositions. It is competent for any hon. Member to move a reduction of the Vote of £4,500,000 asked for the Soudan, and that will distinctly raise a question on which any objections that may be felt to the conduct of the Government in regard to the Soudan can without prejudice be stated. I will reply to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal by appealing to him to take the opportunity which such a course will present, and so relieve himself of the difficulty which Her Majesty's Government cannot relieve him from without striking at the basis of the policy which we have announced. That policy is to hold the Forces in the Soudan, while they remain in the Soudan, available for service elsewhere. In that policy we ask the House to uphold us. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) must know that the business of concentration in the Soudan is a serious military operation; that the withdrawal of a considerable Force from the heart of the country is a costly and even to some extent a protracted business; and it is totally impossible for the Government to draw that line and divide the Vote. I shall state frankly to the Committee, when that stage is reached, that Her Majesty's Ministers are asking the House to a certain extent to vote money with regard to which, in certain contingencies, the Government will have a choice. I cannot tell to what extent it may be necessary for us to apply the Vote in regard to the Soudan to the purpose of special preparation. It may or it may not be that £2,000,000 out of the £4,000,000 will be spent in the Soudan and the rest elsewhere. If we had not the liberty of applying the £4,500,000 as we required the only course for us would be to continue to ask £4,500,000 for the Soudan, because the money might possibly be spent there, and £12,000,000 for special preparations, because the money may be wanted for that purpose. The result would be that we should have to ask Parliament to spend £2,000,000 more. I do not, however, think it desirable to ask Parliament to authorize the Government to spend £2,000,000 more than they are likely to want. It would not 847 have been right to make such a demand and to require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to add these £2,000,000 to the sum which on Thursday will be asked for in Committee of Ways and Means. That being so, I think I have shown that while on the other side the objection to the course we propose is of a technical character, on ours it is a matter of substance, inasmuch as it enables us to apply motley granted for the purpose of the Soudan to other objects. As to the Soudan Enterprize, we have bound ourselves not to prosecute offensive operations or to undertake an early advance on Khartoum; and our Forces remain there only until we can safely bring them home or make them available for employment elsewhere. I cannot but think that our proposal is a reasonable one, and that the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends will have ample opportunity of raising the Soudan question, by moving the diminution of the Vote, and making that Motion the means of censuring Her Majesty's Government for its conduct with regard to the Soudan.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: —Ayes 229; Noes 186: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 129.)
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to,