HC Deb 28 June 1877 vol 235 cc463-70
MR. RYLANDS

said, that he understood Army Estimates were not to be taken, and that the House was asked to resolve itself into Committee for the purpose simply of voting large sums on account of Civil Service Estimates. He wished, therefore, on his own behalf, and on behalf of several hon. Friends near him, to enter a strong protest against the course which the Government intended to pursue. He had placed on the Notice Paper a Resolution on the subject which the Forms of the House did not allow him to move: it was to this effect— That it is not expedient, at so late a period of the Session, to grant any further Votes on Account for Civil Service Estimates. In preparing that Resolution he had followed the exact words used by the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary, in a Motion which he brought forward on May 25th, 1871, and which he supported in a speech strongly condemning the Liberal Government for proposing Votes on Account at so late a period of the Session. But they had now arrived at a month later in the Session, and there was all the more reason why the House should resist the proposals of the Government. In 1871, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cross) brought forward his Motion, it was received with quite a chorus of approval from the Conservative benches. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) complained of the great abuses which must necessarily arise from deferring the full consideration of the Estimates by passing Votes on Account. The present First Lord of the Admiralty took the same line, and the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), with his usual terseness and clearness of expression, condemned the practice of discussing the Estimates at so late a period that they might be said to be shuffled through the House rather than discussed; and he expressed the suspicion that the Estimates might be purposely delayed from the desire of Ministers to shut the mouths of private Members who wished to bring forward Motions on going into Committee of Supply. Let the House remember the position in which they were placed in this matter. There had already been a large sum granted in Votes on Account at the beginning of the Session, amounting to £3,606,000, and there was, no doubt, a justification for that proceeding in consequence of the operation of the Exchequer and Audit Act, which compelled the surrender of unexpended balances at the close of the financial year. It was therefore necessary, in order to meet the current expenditure, for the Government early in April to ask for Votes on Account in anticipation of Committee of Supply on detailed Estimates. He did not object to that course provided only a moderate sum were asked for; but the case was altogether different at later periods of the Session. The Government now asked them to vote at the end of June the sum of £1,327,910 on account of Civil Service Estimates, which was equal to five or six weeks expenditure, and if it were granted, what would be the consequence? Most probably that the consideration of Civil Service Estimates would be thrown over to August, when it would be utterly impossible to give them any serious attention. Probably they would be hurried through in a small and jaded House, upon a Morning Sitting on a Saturday in the first or second, week in August, when the slightest attempt at discussion would be resented as an intolerable nuisance. They would probably be told, as was customary upon these occasions, that it was an "Imperial necessity" to pass this Vote on Account to meet the Engagements of the Government at Quarter Day; but who were to blame for the existing difficulty? Clearly the Government themselves, by the way in which they had managed the business of the House in postponing Supply to this late period of the Session. They might have availed themselves of several Mondays which they had devoted to other Business not of a pressing character. Take, for instance, the Prisons Bill, for which there was no urgent necessity, but which had occupied at least two Mondays which might otherwise have been devoted to making considerable progress with the Estimates. The other day, on a public occasion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to the large amount of time which had been swallowed up by the Prisons Bill, and to the probable large demands upon the national funds which would result from that piece of legislation. The right hon. Gentleman was no doubt right in his statement; but, without dwelling upon any individual case, it was quite evident that the Government by giving precedence to Committee of Supply might have prevented the House being driven into its present position. The practice of Votes on Account was so objectionable that it would be right to take strong measures to put a stop to them; and he was convinced that if the Vote were refused on the present occasion, although there might be some temporary inconvenience to the Government Departments, there would be a final stop put to the vicious practice in future Sessions.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he could see nothing practical in such speeches as that to which the House had just been listening, which took up a good deal of time, and which stood in the way of the very thing which the speakers themselves contended ought to be done. They were all agreed that one of the most important duties of the House of Commons was to canvass the Estimates in Supply, and any Government that attempted to prevent the canvassing of the Estimates would be guilty of great misconduct. But the Government had, as a matter of fact, done all they could to bring in Supply on various occasions since the opening of the Session. Indeed, he would venture to say that in no previous Session had the House been so often invited to go into Committee of Supply. When, however, Supply was put on the Notice Paper as the Business of the evening, the time was occupied in discussing Motions of various kinds—a course to which he offered no objection—until near 12 o'clock, when it was urged that it was too late to proceed with Supply. It was not, therefore, the fault of the Government that they were not able to get into Supply. It was not by any action of the Government that that night had been occupied with other matters than Supply, and on other occasions they had been prevented from going into Supply in consequence of the tiresome debates that had taken place on such unimportant subjects as the Queen's Plates and Secret Service money. On one occasion no less than six-and-a-half hours had, he recollected, been consumed in getting through five Votes. If that was the course to be pursued, the House must make up its mind to sit, not only into August, but into September, and it was very probable as it was that the Session would be an unusually long one. It was absolutely necessary to take Votes on Account, otherwise the money would not be forthcoming with which to pay the current services of the country. Next Monday a fresh quarter would be commenced, and the ordinary quarterly payments would become due; and he wished to know whether the House desired that the Government should tell the Civil servants that they could not pay their salaries because the House refused to vote the money for them? He could assure them that he was not at all anxious to take Votes on Account, because by doing so an opportunity was afforded to hon. Members of raising the same objections to a Vote over and over again. The Government had endeavoured ever since Friday, the 16th March, to bring forward the Civil Service Estimates, but without success. It was not the fault of Government that different subjects had been brought forward for discussion on going into Supply, because they had no power to prevent such subjects being brought forward. The result of the course which had been taken in the present instance by the hon. Member would be, whatever might be his intention, simple obstruction, and it seemed like an attempt, under the guise of trying to get forward, to prevent them from getting forward. Under the present system of surrendering the balances at the end of the year, the Government must ask for Votes on Account, otherwise they could not carry on the business of the country. What remedy did the hon. Member propose for it? Were the Government to abolish the system of surrendering the balances at the end of the year? [Mr. RYLANDS: No!] Did he mean to limit the power of hon. Members to move Amendments on the Motion that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of Supply? [Mr. RYLANDS: No!] Then what did the hon. Member mean? Was the House before it began any legislative measures to pass all the Votes in Supply? If so, he was afraid there would be an outcry against the Government for endeavouring to curtail the sitting of Parliament. The real truth was, that if the House desired that its Business should be properly conducted, it must assist in doing it properly, and hon. Members must not come forward, as the hon. Member for Burnley had done, obstructing, and not facilitating business. The Government had already overdrawn to a certain extent, and if this Vote on Account were not passed the greatest irregularity would result, and the public service must necessarily suffer.

MR. DILLWYN

said, it was for the Government to say how they would obtain money. The Government were responsible for the conduct of Business in that House, and it was their duty to facilitate it, instead of which they occupied the Morning Sittings with measures that were of no importance. The present Government had the whole time of the Session at their disposal, and what legislation had they to show for it? He might be called obstructive. But the real question was, whether or not the House was to control the supplies? He thought it could not do so if the Votes were taken at so late a period in the Session and in a lump sum.

MR. GOLDSMID

maintained that the statement made by the Secretary of the Treasury in regard to Civil Service Estimates in the early part of the Session had materially facilitated the progress of the Estimates. The best way to get through Supply would be to have Morning Sittings, at which it could be taken.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was not deserving of the censure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had passed upon him. The right hon. Gentleman had addressed the House at considerable length, and did not appear to be exceedingly anxious to go into Committee of Supply. He (the Marquess of Hartington) did not think that when a Vote on Account was asked for they were wasting time in asking whether the Business of the House had been conducted in the most satisfactory manner. There was a Standing Order that on Mondays no Motions could be brought forward on Supply except in relation to the Estimates, and the Government had not availed themselves of the facilities given by that Order. At a very early period of the Session they had asked, for Morning Sittings; but they had used these Sittings for the purpose of advancing Bills which, in the opinion of a considerable number of Members, were of no great importance, and not in taking Supply. On the evenings of the days on which Morning Sittings were held the House was generally counted out, and Members who were thus prevented from bringing forward their Motions naturally took advantage of the first night when Supply was down to bring them before the House. It was the conduct of the Government and not the conduct of the House which had rendered it necessary to make this demand for a Vote on Account which the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted was objectionable.

MR. BUTT

thought the charge of obstruction made against the hon. Member for Burnley was perfectly unfounded. He was not obstructing the business of Supply, but obstructing a Vote on Account to which they all objected. They understood that the business of the night was to be the Army Estimates, and not one of these Motions could have been brought forward if the Government had taken the Army Estimates. He thought it was better that legislation should be postponed than such a violation of the Constitution should occur as the House losing control over the Army Estimates. If he withdrew his opposition to the Vote on Account, he should like to know if the Government would name a day on which the Estimates would come before the House, so that they might have an opportunity of discussing them? Take, for instance, the Irish Education Estimates, on which there were important Motions that they desired to have the opportunity of discussing.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

expressed a hope that the Business of the evening might proceed without heated controversy between the two sides of the House. He would remind the noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) that eight Mondays had already been taken in Supply. On two of them the Army Estimates had been set down with the unusual result that only two Votes had been obtained on each occasion, while to-night Supply had not yet been reached. As for the present state of Business, the interests of the private Members seemed to him to be as much concerned as those of the Government. That night there had been 32 Motions on the Paper, and nobody knew beforehand which of them would be taken. Surely some remedy for this state of things was desirable? It was now the intention of the Government to proceed steadily with the Estimates, and he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) that the House would have a full opportunity for discussing the various items. He hoped that that evening the House would grant the Vote which was so necessary for the carrying on of the public service.

MR. PARNELL

wished to remark on, not to say contradict, the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the vast amount of time expended in discussing the Secret Service Vote, and also the Vote for Queen's Plates for Ireland and Scotland. He (Mr. Parnell) was in the House that night, and there were just two hours spent on the Secret Service Vote. Many of the speeches were of 10 or 15 minutes' length, and on his own part he spoke only five minutes. It was a subject of great interest, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must agree that the time was not ill-spent. As to the Queen's Plates Votes, the Scotch Plates were discussed by Scotch Members almost entirely, and the next Vote was opposed by the noble Lord sitting just behind the Treasury Bench (Lord Randolph Churchill), and his speech much exceeded in length that of any other speech made during the evening by any Member in connection with the Secret Service Vote. Those two Votes did not take much more than an hour, so that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer threw up his hands and called upon the House to bear witness to the time wasted it was quite unnecessary. He hoped the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would not be deterred from doing his duty by the charge of obstruction. He had heard that charge made by many persons, and by writers in the newspapers, during the present Session, but in no case was that charge substantiated. He regretted the Chancellor of the Exchequer had followed that bad example, and if he had tried to substantiate that charge he would have found himself unable to do so.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)