HC Deb 25 June 1880 vol 253 cc919-24

Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, he begged to move that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair in order to enable the Government to take a Vote on Account.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he wished to make a remark with regard to taking Votes on Account. They knew that the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who then occupied seats on the Treasury Bench did not always agree with taking such Votes. He did not wish to interfere with the proposal at all; but he desired to state that he thought if Supply had been arranged as it ought to have been such Votes would not have been required. He would not oppose the Motion of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish); but he wished to recall to their minds what was said on that subject when the late Government was in Office. He trusted they would not think he was placing obstacles in the way. He quite admitted that such a step as that proposed was rendered necessary this year from the somewhat peculiar position of the Government only having been in Office so short a time, and there being many measures which they wished to bring forward. He only rose to say that he hoped that that Motion would not be made a precedent, but that Government would follow the good advice which was tendered to them (the preceding Government) when the present Government were in Opposition—namely, that Supply should not be put aside because certain measures of the Government had to be brought forward. He hoped that the proposed Vote on Account would be the last, and that the Government would take care that before the Vote now asked for was expended to put Supply down in such a manner as that it might be unnecessary to take any more such Votes during the present Parliament.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, that he did not think it possible for anything that was done in that matter that Session to be taken as a precedent hereafter, because of the peculiar circumstances of the case. The late Government had thought it necessary to have a Dissolution of Parliament in the middle of the Session, and in consequence of the change of Government there had necessarily been to a very great extent disorganization of the Business of the House. Therefore, the proceedings in a late Session such as the present could hardly be taken to be usual. He felt bound to observe that the necessity of taking a Vote on Account did not arise from any undue pressure of the Government in bringing forward their own measures, for they had always arranged for Supply to come on in the usual course; but owing to the shortness of the Session they had had little or no opportunity of taking Committee of Supply. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would have anything different to propose with reference to propose with reference to that matter; but he wished it to be understood that the conduct of the late Government was not in the slightest degree reflected upon by the Motion then before the House.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he had taken a great interest in the discussions on Votes on Account; and, although he disliked them, he thought they were necessary in the case of a late Session, such as the pre-sent. The right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had recognized the peculiar circumstances of the present Session; the present Government had only been in Office for a very short time, and, of course, they were all aware that during two months of the Session it had been quite impossible to proceed with any Public Business whatever. He was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the course which had been taken in former Parliaments. He (Mr. Rylands) recollected having opposed the then Government for having brought forward Votes on Account at late periods of the year, and it should be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman who was then in Office justified the late Government in asking for Votes on Account. For his own part he thought there could be no defence made for dealing with matters of Supply in that way; but, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he did not see how in this instance it was to be avoided. He considered that it was incumbent on them to assist the Government in that matter, inasmuch as it had been impossible to bring Supply on at an earlier period.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, he did not wish to oppose the Motion for a Vote on Account; but, at the same time, he did not like the mode of procedure of that kind which had been in vogue for the last two or three years. It had been said that the circumstances of the case were peculiar; but if they were so it was nothing new, for they had been in a similar position often before, and he must say he objected to the Business of the country being done in that way. The fact of the matter was this—and he wished to tell the Government so—that there were too many Bills brought in, and in consequence the financial affairs of the nation were pushed into a corner, and in many cases voted without any notice being given. That was not the right way to do the Business of the House. He himself would probably never occupy a seat on the Front Bench, and he eared little what Party was in power so long as the Business of the nation was properly attended to. He had no wish to oppose the Motion; but he did hope that there would be a change in the mode of doing business.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, no doubt the present circumstances were peculiar, and he did not see how the proposed course could be avoided. They were all aware that there had previously been as much as £4,000,000 absorbed, in providing for the debt of the country which had not been provided for out of Ways and Means. Under the circumstances existing last Session, he thought the House had afforded every facility to the then Government, and he had no doubt but that the House would acquiesce in the Motion then before them. The noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) must, however, expect that all the Estimates would receive, not only a severe, but a rigid examination when Votes on Account were taken in that manner. It was no more than right that the House should expect that when any Gentleman criticized the Estimates he should receive full explanation of the various Votes. He had observed, in the course of the discussion on the Estimates, that excuses had been given on account of the Estimates of the Predecessors of the present Government. He must say that he was of opinion that they had heard sufficient on that subject, when he came to consider the advantages which had accrued to hon. Gentlemen in Office from the change of Government. He had often heard it said, when a man came into a large estate, that he would have been much richer without it; but he never heard of any gentleman giving up the estate on account of the great trouble which it entailed. That was, he considered, the position of the Government. They had received a legacy, which was attended with considerable difficulty, no doubt, from their Predecessors; but, at the same time, they had received a legacy both of honour and responsibility, and he thought it was their bounden duty to fall in with the feeling prevalent in the country, and to give a full and fair explanation whenever anyone chose to criticize the Estimates. Under those circumstances, he felt sure that when the Estimates came on full criticism would be allowed and a full explanation given.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he wished to make a remark with reference to the time that Vote on Account was calculated to last. The sum of £100,000 put down for purposes of education— which was the subject with which he was most acquainted—would not last a fortnight. Of course, if there was a sum already voted which had not been spent, that might be added to the sums now asked for. It seemed to him, however, that the sum then applied for was not sufficient for a period of six weeks.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, that if the Vote was carried the period at the expiration of six weeks would be rather a late one for the Estimates. He thought that it was most inconvenient that those Votes should be taken when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was not present. The responsible Ministers were not then there, and he really thought that was not respectful to the House. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) was really the only Minister of consequence that he saw on the Treasury Bench; and he really thought that it was not respectful to the House, when they were asked to give blind confidence to the Government in a Vote which would carry them on to the middle of August, that the Prime Minister, who was also Chancellor of the Exchequer, was not present to answer any questions that might be put.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, that in reply to the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), he wished to say that he believed that the sum now asked for for educational purposes would be found to be sufficient. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), he would only say he would do all in his power to bring forward the Estimates so that they might be properly discussed.

MR. PARNELL

said, he wished to mention a matter for which he saw the Government proposed a vote of £190,000 —namely, the Vote for the Irish Constabulary. It was a question that had never been sufficiently debated in that House; and yet there were important considerations connected with that Force, as at present constituted, which it would be necessary to bring before the House of Commons. By that custom of taking Votes on Account, the Irish Estimates were habitually pushed back to the end of the Session, when there were no adequate means for discussion. He knew there were excuses for the present Government in reference to the course proposed to be adopted. That was practically the first Vote on Account the present Government had taken, although he did not think that it was the first that had been taken under those Estimates, so there was some excuse. He hoped the noble Lord the manager of that Business in the House (Lord Frederick Cavendish) would be able to see his way to giving an assurance to the Irish Members that a fair opportunity would be afforded on a subsequent stage for discussing the Vote of the Irish Constabulary.

MR. FINIGAN

said, he thought that if the noble Lord who had charge of those Estimates would give a definite assurance that the questions regarding the enormous sum of money which was then to be voted for purposes which partially referred to the maintenance of a Military Force would be allowed to be taken on some definite day, the Irish Members would really be quite content. Looking over the abstract of the Estimates which that Vote referred to, he found that there was no real work proposed to be done under them in regard to that part of the country with which he was himself connected. There was, in fact, only a sum of £2,500 asked for, which was for work to be done on the Shannon. That was really a small sum, considering the fact that that river ran through a district which really was very much in need of labour.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now discussing the Vote, and is out of Order.

Question put, and agreed to.