HC Deb 05 March 1883 vol 276 cc1536-52

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he wished to ask the Government whether, at that hour of the night—a quarter to 12 o'clock—it was not right to report Progress? Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury was not aware of the fact; but he wished to remind the Head of the Government of the pledge into which that right hon. Gentleman entered during the debates on the Procedure Rules last year. On that occasion this important question of discussions in Committee of Supply was carefully gone into; and the Prime Minister expressed a strong opinion that when the Speaker left the Chair on Mondays and Thursdays, without the intervention of any preliminary discussions, it was not unreasonable that Progress should be reported at midnight. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there was a distinct understanding to that effect; and it was understood that one of the great advantages which the House was to derive from the New Rules was that they were not to continue these Votes in Supply long after midnight. That was a distinct and clear understanding, and it was one of the terms on which the House agreed to allow the Speaker to leave the Chair on Mondays and Thursdays without any other Question being put. Considering that they had now been engaged in the discussion of Supplementary Estimates ranging over almost every variety of subject since 5 o'clock, he did not think it was unreasonable that those who had been sitting there for so many hours should ask the Government to report Progress. Therefore, without the least intention of obstructing Business, he moved that Progress be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed) "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

MR. GLADSTONE

said, it was impossible for him to accede to the Motion of the noble Lord. They had now been engaged in Committee of Supply since 6 o'clock. The understanding to which the noble Lord referred amounted to this. It used to be a common thing to go on with Supply until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, and they were very glad to get rid of the necessity for those late hours. But, tonight, they had had nearly an hour cut off at the beginning of their proceedings, and the noble Lord now proposed to cut off another quarter at the end, and that double process of the reduction of time would be very inconvenient indeed. Another special consideration which ought to be borne in mind was this, that these were not ordinary Estimates, but Supplementary Estimates, which must be passed before the close of the financial year. If the Government acceded to propositions of this kind at this stage, they would be compelled to ask the House to adopt other measures which would entail much greater inconvenience upon hon. Members in order to meet the requirements of the law.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that after this explanation he would withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, this was a Vote to pay the expense of providing accommodation for the spectators on the occasion of the Royal Review of the Forces that had returned from Egypt—the Review which took place in St. James's Park. He did not mean actually to oppose this Vote, though he believed that it would have been better if the troops had been kept at home. But to show the troops to the people of this country in this way when they came back was really making a military glorification of the Expedition. He had been given to understand that the honours awarded for this Egyption Expedition were a good deal more numerous and far greater than those which were awarded for the Waterloo Campaign—a campaign of far greater importance. No doubt, enormous credit was due to Lord Wolseley and to Her Majesty's Government for carrying this Egyptian Campaign through so bloodlessly and with so moderate an expense to its termination; but it was not necessary to make a point of military vapouring about honour and glory.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(5.) £5,200, Houses of Parliament.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

wanted an explanation on a matter which was not at all clear. A sum of £3,000 was charged for the House of Commons during the Autumn Session. He would not go into the question as to whether the country did or did not get value for that Autumn Session, but there was one item under Sub-head E—an item of £1,275 for furniture—which he wished to call attention to. Of that sum £600 was charged for furniture of the rooms for the Grand Committees, and that was not unreasonable; but the remainder of the excess was occasioned by the Autumn Session. He could understand the other items put down for the Autumn Session, such as salaries, ventilating, warming, lighting, and the rest; but he could not understand how the supply and repair of furniture could reach to that extent. He thought the Secretary to the Treasury would have some difficulty in offering a satisfactory explanation on the point.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he could only point out that the ordinary charge for the supply and repair of fur- niture for the Houses of Parliament amounted to £6,000 a-year, and that included a great deal of wear and tear and repairing.

EARL PERCY

wanted to know what was the meaning of the very large sum which was charged for supplying additional presses for Members of the House in one of the Corridors? The item amounted to £340 for additional presses. He had examined these presses that afternoon, and he believed there were 50 new ones, and he submitted that £340 for 50 new lockers was an excessively large Estimate. This Vote was increasing year by year. Only three years ago the whole sum voted for the Houses of Parliament was £33,000. It was now increased in three years to £42,000, and the excess was by no means covered by the £3,000 put down as chiefly owing to the Autumn Session. He thought that if the House of Commons was intended to check the Expenditure of the country, it would do well to put some check upon the outlay upon this Vote.

MR. SALT

said, he hoped that another year his right hon. Friend would say at once what he wanted when the ordinary Estimates came up for consideration. These Supplementary Estimates were most unsatisfactory. In some cases they were, perhaps, inevitable; but in matters of ordinary annual expenditure each Department ought to know what it wanted. It was most unsatisfactory that these Supplementary Estimates should be continually coming in after the ordinary Votes were passed; and, under such an arrangement, it was absolutely impossible for Her Majesty's Government to obtain a proper control over the Expenditure. If the National Expenditure was to be kept down to the point at which it ought to be kept down, it must be done by small economies—by looking after every £5 that was spent. If they continued to have ordinary Estimates in April, then Supplementary Estimates in July, and then Supplementary Estimates again in February, it was absolutely impossible for Her Majesty's Government, or the House of Commons, to preserve that proper control over economical expenditure for which the constituencies of the country very properly looked. He did hope that when his right hon. Friend produced his ordinary Estimates, after Easter, he would produce Estimates on which they might be able to rely, for it was very much better to vote a little too much at first than to have these Supplementary Estimates continually recurring. One word about the Autumn Session which applied to one or two of these Votes. He had a very strong feeling in his mind of which he would like to relieve himself, and that was, that the Vote for the Autumn Session ought to have been taken at the commencement of the Autumn Session. It was a necessary expenditure, and he felt very strongly that an Estimate for that necessary expenditure ought to have been placed before the House when they were launched, at great inconvenience, upon the Autumn Session. Instead of that having been done, Supplementary Estimates were now produced in the month of March, when the House could not refuse to pass them. An enormous amount of money had now to be spent over an Autumn Session which it would have been much better for them to have done without.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

explained that, with the single exception of the presses, there was not one item in the Account which could possibly have been foreseen. He need hardly remind hon. Members that the Grand Committees were not talked about at the commencement of the Autumn Session.

MR. MONTAGUE GUEST

said, he thought the sum of £340 for 50 presses was most enormous, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he got an estimate for them? If hon. Members were putting up such presses in their own houses, they would be very careful to find out what they would cost before they had them put up.

EARL PERCY

said, the item for the supply and repair of furniture during the Autumn Session was £675. He wished to know how the Autumn Session made it necessary to supply new furniture and to arrange for repairs at such a cost?

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he thought an answer ought to be given to this question. He wanted to know why so much was spent for repair of furniture during the Autumn Session?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he had already explained that the total cost was £6,000 for the whole of the Session, and that the excess for the Autumn Session was £675. The ordinary wear and tear of the House was very heavy indeed.

VISCOUNT EMLYN

said, he thought that on both sides of the House there was dissatisfaction with the insufficiency of the explanation that had been given. The right hon. Gentleman had been asked as to the additional presses for Members, whether the amount of £340 was not excessive, and his answer was merely that he had been pressed for 50 presses and he had supplied them. He (Viscount Emlyn) did not know whether that was an official reply, or whether it was a courteous one; but the Committee was entitled to have an answer to the question, and if it were not to be given it appeared to him that the Committee might save itself the trouble of any criticism upon the Votes at all. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £340.

Amendment proposed, "That the Vote be reduced by the sum of £340."—(Viscount Emlyn.)

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he was sorry he could not give any further information, but he promised to make further inquiries, and if the noble Viscount would renew the question on a future occasion, he would endeavour to answer it.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he thought that, at the same time, his right hon. Friend might give them some more information with regard to the excess under Sub-head E, for that was a matter which was perfectly inexplicable as it stood, and the information which the right hon. Gentleman had given had really not been satisfactory.

VISCOUNT EMLYN

expressed his readiness to withdraw the Motion for the reduction of the Vote.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) £1,700, County Court Buildings.

(7.) £350, Harbours, &c., under the Board of Trade.

(8.) £6,700, Rates on Government Property.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he thought there ought to be some explanation of this Vote, as he did not see how it was that the Government did not know what rates would be imposed when the Estimates were presented.

Mr. W. H. SMITH

pointed out that there was some discrepancy in the figures, as there was an original Estimate given of £161,500, and another original Estimate of £201,088.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the explanation on this last point was very simple. The smaller original Estimate referred only to Sub-head C, the larger one to all the sub-heads. As to the question raised by the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire, there were certain items of taxation which could not be settled when the original Estimate was prepared. The original Estimate included all the then outstanding items.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

wished to know, with reference to the item of £3,150, under Sub-head C, for the rates for Public Buildings, Law Courts, Parks, Police Courts, &c., how much of the sum was for Parks and Police Courts, as he proposed to move the reduction of the Vote by that amount.

MR. COURTNEY

was unable to say, but he would promise to inquire into the matter, and there would be many opportunities of raising the question.

SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was not quite satisfied as to the item for Prisons, amounting to £660. The Government must have known perfectly well what the rateable value of those prisons were, for they had had them in their hands for a long time.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the matter was one between the Treasury and the local authorities. The local authorities sent in their Returns, and the Treasury could only accept them.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £4,741, Shannon Navigation.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he thought it would be well for the Secretary to the Treasury to explain how it was that so large an excess as one-third of the whole Vote was not anticipated when the Estimates were framed. This would seem to be an expenditure that might well have been allowed to stand over for another year; but, assuming it to be a proper expenditure, how was it that a sum of £4,741 was now asked for, when they were told that there would be a set-off of £1,000? A rule had been laid down that these extra receipts were not to be paid into the Exchequer, but were to be taken in diminution of the Vote. Was that sum of £1,000 to be paid into the Exchequer in contravention of the rule, or bow was it to be accounted for hereafter? This was one of many Votes which, to his mind, illustrated the objectionable practice which bad grown up in the Treasury of bringing forward these paltry excesses in the form of Supplementary Estimates, and calling the attention of the House to them in that form, so as to screen the Departments. These were matters which should be subjected to proper audit, for what was the use of the Auditor General if a Department was to be screened in this way from his criticisms? The proper Representative of the Department should be called before the Committee on Public Accounts, and made to explain why the Vote had been exceeded. This was not an Estimate at all, but the confirmation of an excess already incurred. He wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this point, as it was likely to lead to a gross abuse.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was under some very strange misapprehension with regard to the arrangement at present in use concerning these Exchequer extra receipts. He (Mr. O'Connor) looked upon it as a very dangerous system for sums such as this to be taken in aid of Votes, and if such a system became general it would do much to counteract the healthy and proper control which the House had over the Public Expenditure. But with regard to this particular sum—a very small sum for the floods of the Shannon—it was very strange that this was the first time it had been seriously carped at. A Vote of £2,400 had just been passed for a Military Review in St. James's Park, which was of no earthly use to anyone; and now this sum, which was absolutely necessary to carry on important works in the Shannon—works which were essential to relieve hundreds of thousands of acres from periodical floods—was objected to. He wished to know from the Secretary to the Treasury whether this was a final charge in regard to the Shannon navigation? The sum originally asked for was £37,000, but that sum had been exceeded. In 1879–80, £5,000 was granted; in 1880–1, £20,000 was granted; and in 1881–2, £24,000 was granted. But of the £20,000 voted in 1880–1, no less than £5,875 was never expended, so that the extra Vote now granted did not even make up the sum which was voted two years ago by the House of Commons, but which never left the Treasury. That being so, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would inform the Committee whether all the works were now in perfect working order, and whether the weirs which were now in use would enable the floods to be drained off.

MR. COURTNEY

replied that, according to the latest information he had, the works would be in perfect order by the end of this month. The increase had attracted the attention of the Treasury, and on inquiry they had found that the work had been very much impeded by the extremely inclement weather in Ireland, which had caused damage to the work in progress. With the exception of a sum of £700, this was the last amount required to complete the charge. The channel was now practically completed.

MR. T. A. DICKSON

inquired whether the whole cost of this work, amounting to £50,000 or £60,000, had been defrayed by the Treasury, or whether any portion of it came upon the rates? He also wished to knew whether the Financial Secretary would direct a Report on the working of the Shannon Sluices to be furnished to the House? These sluices were merely an experiment, and they were the first in connection with any Irish river; and as the hon. Gentleman had stated that the work would be completed by the end of the month, it was desirable to have a Report from the engineer as to the effect and results of these sluices without delay.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he would at once admit the importance of watching the working of this experiment; but he thought some time must elapse before a Report could be called for. The sum of £700 was not really connected with this work, but was for continuing some other improvements. So far as he was aware the whole of this expense was borne by the Treasury.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) £1,000, Royal University, Ireland, Buildings.

MR. PARNELL

said, he wished to know how far these buildings had ad- vanced, and what was their state of completion?

MR. COURTNEY

replied, that what remained to be done was the alteration of certain rooms as offices.

Vote agreed to.

(11.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, including Rents and Furniture, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries abroad.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he wished to call attention to the remarkable development of this Estimate. As the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had pointed out, the Government had got into a habit of bringing forward Supplementary Estimates in an extraordinary way. The total original Estimate in this case was £25,765; then there was a Supplementary Estimate of £6,000 last Session; and now there was a further sum of £2,000—making altogether an increase of 33 per cent upon the first Estimate. There must be some explanation of this, for the first Estimate was supposed to be the Estimate for the whole year. The Government had probably taken credit to themselves for having proposed only £25,000, and yet they required £8,000 more before the year was out. He would like to know something about the item for sanitary works at the Washington Embassy. Why had these been carried out since the Estimate was first proposed? The Government must have known when they introduced the Estimate that these works were required; and he wished to know why there was this additional Vote, when the Government knew there was a strong feeling in the House against spending money? Then with regard to the graves of soldiers in the Transvaal, were they under the superintendence of an Ambassador or a Consul? Had they a Consul out there?

MR. COURTNEY

There is a Resident.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

He is not under the Foreign Office. He communicates with the Colonial Office.

MR. COURTNEY

This is not a Foreign Office matter.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he could not understand why this matter was put under the Foreign Office. He thought there was some meaning in it. Why the cemeteries in the Transvaal, which had nothing to do with Diplomatic business, should be put in this Vote was more than an outsider like himself could understand. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to explain why an Estimate was not originally taken for the sanitary works at Washington, for the Consular offices at Bankok, and for these graves in the Transvaal?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, if the Treasury had known of these sanitary works at Washington they would have included them in the original Estimate; but, in point of fact, after the Estimate was made up, a telegram was received stating that the Embassy buildings were in an unhealthy condition, and that it was absolutely necessary to do something at once. The Treasury therefore sent out a surveyor, and he found that the buildings were in an extremely dangerous condition, and that improvements were absolutely necessary. With regard to the Consular buildings at Bankok, it was originally intended to spread that work over two years, but they had received an intimation that the work would be completed shortly, because it was impossible to carry on building work in that country at any other period of the year, and they had therefore thought it better to spend £800 more at once than to throw the work later in the year. With respect to the soldiers' graves in the Transvaal, the hon. Member appeared to be unaware that the original Vote contained an item for the graves of soldiers in the Crimea. The charge was only £200, and he was sure the Committee would not object to grant that.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he had no objection to the Vote in itself, but there was no analogy between the graves in the Crimea and those in the Transvaal, because the former were under a Consul, whereas the latter were not, and therefore they ought not to be put into this Vote.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he had no doubt that the Treasury thought that the same Office should have charge of all the graves.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he thought the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman entirely unsatisfactory. The Committee must be aware that if the Government were allowed without difficulty to carry Supplementary Estimates, they would engage in new works without the previous knowledge of the House. The right hon. Gentleman stated with regard to the works at Washington that at some time last year the buildings were reported to be in an insanitary condition; but what did he do? He actually sent over a surveyor from this country to make a Report as to what should be done in the matter. He objected to this waste of public money in sending over a surveyor, instead of placing the matter in the hands of someone at Washington; and he should like to know what class of work was done. Then with regard to the Consular offices at Bankok, the Treasury had gone to expense without thinking it necessary to take the opinion of the House of Commons upon it; and they gave no satisfactory reason for not including this item in the original Estimate. There was no justification for this, and he therefore would move to reduce the Vote by £500.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, including Rents and Furniture, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries abroad."—(Mr. Rylands.)

MR. MONTAGUE GUEST

asked what proportion the expenses of the surveyor bore to the amount now charged? It struck him as an extraordinary thing to send a surveyor from this country to Washington for a small matter which could have been dealt with by people on the spot.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the hon. Member seemed to be unaware that there was a Government surveyor, whose duty it was to survey Diplomatic buildings. That was the only way in which they could control expenditure. Expenditure to a large amount was constantly pressed upon them from all parts of the world, and it was only by sending a man from head-quarters to make special investigations that they were able to control this kind of expenditure, and he ventured to think that this system had been very effective in diminishing expenditure in a variety of ways. But for such con- trol these Estimates would be far greater than they had been. When the Treasury heard from the Minister to the United States that the Embassy was in a bad state, they thought the most economical way of ascertaining the facts and controlling expenditure was to send this surveyor out to inquire into the matter, and the total expense was not £40. He did not think this was an unwise course, having regard to all the circumstances; and but for this system the expenditure would very easily grow into a much greater amount.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he thought there was certainly some reason in what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and that in the case of Constantinople it was wise to send out a special surveyor, because there there were a large number of buildings, and there was a constant desire to spend money. But with regard to Washington, he thought a fee of £10 to a Sanitary Inspector on the spot would have supplied the Treasury with what they wished to know. He did not object to the Vote itself; but there was always something going on at these places, and he thought the Committee ought to protest against these items being put in the Supplementary Estimates. For that reason he should vote for the Amendment.

MR. DILLWYN

asked what was the limit of expenditure on works upon which this surveyor was sent to all parts of the world?

MR. GIBSON

asked whether, as the principle was that this surveyor should be sent out to all parts of the world, he was sent to Bankok; and, as several hon. Members had some doubt as to were Bankok was, the right hon. Gentleman would ascertain from the Foreign Office, or elsewhere?

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, he could not help thinking these Estimates were made up in a very slipshod fashion. With reference to Bankok, it had been originally proposed that one-fourth of the building should be done in the year; but now it seemed that three-fourths had been done. In regard to this surveyor, did he receive an annual salary, or was he only employed for each occasion separately? If he received a salary, how was he employed when not travelling?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

replied, that the surveyor was only sent out in re- ference to important works. He was a salaried officer, and when not employed in that way he was engaged in advising the authorities at home. He was not sent to Bankok. The original intention was to commence the building at Bankok between the present financial year and the next, and to spread the payment over the two years; but after that had been determined upon the Treasury learnt that the building season was a short one, and it was necessary to proceed with the work at once.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, he thought that any hon. Member who had any knowledge of drainage work would be glad to get it done at once; and it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had done all that was in his power.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

wished to know how much of this £1,000 was spent on the journey of the surveyor? Were his expenses included in the £1,000? [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: No.] These sanitary works, therefore, cost £1,000, plus the expenses of the journey. Surely it would have been easy to obtain a satisfactory Report from someone in Washington, which might have been checked by this distinguished surveyor. He should support the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), seeing that the original Estimate had been increased by 33 per cent.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, his right hon. Friend had already explained that the total cost of sending out this salaried officer had been about £40. He doubted very much whether any economy would have resulted from employing someone at Washington, for he knew something about that city, and he should not be content to trust to surveyors at Washington, where the question of drainage was one of peculiar difficulty.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 92: Majority 33.—(D.List, No. 18.)

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there had not been, under this Vote, a saving in two items—namely, "A" and "C," which almost amounted to the extra sum now asked for, and whether there had not been every year a small saving almost sufficient to cover the Supplementary Estimates?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he was not aware of any saving at present. When the Estimate was brought forward, they might be aware of such a thing; but they could not propose a small sum now on the mere chance of there eventually being a saving of which they now knew nothing.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

SIR WALTER B.BARTTELOT

said, he thought that now, at five minutes to 1 o'clock, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have no objection to reporting Progress. They had been discussing the Estimates since a little before 6 o'clock. He therefore begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, that the Committee surely would not adjourn the discussion of the Estimates before 1 o'clock, when it was absolutely necessary that the whole of the Vote should be got through that day. If the whole of the Estimates were not got through at the next Sitting, they would have to sit either on Saturday next or the Thursday in Holy Week. He would now suggest to the Committee that they should sit another half-hour, so as to improve the chance of getting through the whole of the Votes at the next Sitting.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he had no objection to going on with Supply for another half-hour; but he would respectfully ask some authority on the Treasury Bench to explain to the Committee how and why it was absolutely necessary to have these Votes taken by a particular date. They were told at the last Sitting that it was absolutely necessary to take the Army Estimates to-day. They had not been taken today, and yet the Constitution would go on without any disastrous consequences. Why was it that the Government were constantly telling them it was absolutely necessary to take particular Votes on a particular day? He had made as careful a calculation as he could, but for the life of him he could not make out why it was so necessary that more of these Votes should be finished to-day.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, the Committee was aware that this year Easter fell unusually early. The result of that was that they must get through not only the whole of the Supplementary Votes, but also the first Votes, the Army and Navy Estimates, and must pass the Ways and Means Bill through both Houses, so as to get the Royal Assent, and take the first Vote on Account for Civil Service before Easter. Easter was on the 25th, and they would have no time between that and the 29th, which was positively the last day on which Treasury operations could be conducted. It was necessary that they should take all these Votes he had referred to, and get the Ways and Means Act assented to by Her Majesty before Good Friday. He presumed the House would not sit on Good Friday, and that would take them at least to the 22nd of this month. If hon. Members would consider how many days it would take to pass the Ways and Means Act, not only through this House, but also through the House of Lords—although in that Chamber they could take two or three stages together—they would see that if the Government did not get the Votes which were necessary on Thursday and Monday and Thursday week, they would have to sit on those days before Easter that, at any rate, they had not been accustomed to sit on—on Good Friday and the day after, or meet again on Easter Tuesday.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

asked whether it was understood that if they did not get through on Thursday and Monday they would have to sit on Thursday in Passion Week?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

replied, that if they concluded the Supplementary Estimates on Thursday, and took the following Monday for the Army Estimates, and the following Thursday for the Navy Estimates, they might just get through.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

When does the Government contemplate rising for the Easter Recess?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

I cannot say; but we shall not be able to rise before the Thursday unless we get these Votes and pass the Ways and Means Bill.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

If we get through, will the Easter Holidays begin on the Tuesday?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

They might.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he was in the hands of the Committee. If the Committee wore anxious to proceed he would withdraw his Motion. He would, however, point out that if they allowed the Estimates to be taken as they had been taken that night, their New Rules would be of no avail. They ought not to pass Votes in this perfunctory manner, for on Thursday the Speaker would at once leave the Chair.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.