HC Deb 11 March 1892 vol 2 cc682-717
(9.0.) MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

I rise, Sir, to move the Resolution standing in my name on the Paper, and I think that everyone who has looked into this matter of grants in Supply will not differ from me when I say the subject is one which may well occupy our attention for the brief period allotted to us at our Evening Sitting. There have been during this Parliament sums amounting to £300,681,014 voted in Committee of Supply, but that figure, large as it is, does not at all convey the importance of the associations, by no means financial, that this matter of Supply calls up. Just as you may trace in the Preambles of Acts of Parliament, which have been passed in this House by our predecessors, the social improvement among our people, so you may trace in the records of the granting of Supplies to the Sovereign that which has led to the widening of the liberties of the nation and the establishment of our Constitutional liberties on a firm basis. Even in the very words that are used by us in the Act we annually pass, called the "Customs and Inland Revenue Act"—in the very words we use in the Preamble of that Act, "we have freely and voluntarily resolved to give and grant unto your Majesty," we convey the fact that it is of our own volition as Representatives of the taxpayers we grant these Supplies. And when we go with you, Sir, to the other end of the Long Corridor to hear the assent of the Crown to various Acts passed by Parliament, we there hear in the bid Norman-French still employed in this matter that the Queen "thanks her good subjects, and freely accepts their benevolence." Now, although, as we all know, controversies with the Crown have long passed by, there has been strong—and it is not dead yet, as we have had more than one evidence during this Parliament—equally strong and Constitutional jealousy of the interference of the other House of Parliament. The Crown demands, the Commons grant, the Lords assent. But it is noteworthy that in our procedure care is also taken against what in these days might possibly become a greater danger than it has been in the past—namely, pressure on the part of a particular locality in regard to the raising of taxation and the necessity for raising it. To use the words of the Clerk who used to sit at that Table, and who has left a name in connection with Parliamentary Procedure never to be mentioned without honour—Sir Erskine May:— The foundation of all Parliamentary taxation is the necessity of the Public Service as declared by the Crown through its Constitutional Advisers. So that, as we all know, it is not competent for any private Member—any non-official Member—to present any demand in the nature of an increase of supply and an increase in taxation. Passing from these Constitutional aspects of the subject, which, to my mind, are still very important, I now ask those who do me the honour to listen to me, what is the object of our going into Committee of Supply, of our doing that which the House has done times out of number resolving itself into Committee of Supply? Well, I suppose, Mr. Speaker—indeed I know—many attempts have been made to define that object; but, after reading a great many of those attempts and thinking the matter over, it seems to me to come very much to the words I have ventured to employ in my Resolution that the object of Committee of Supply is to afford the House of Commons "control over the policy and expenditure of the administrative Departments," and I attach as much importance to the one word as to the other. I draw no distinction in importance between "policy" and "expenditure." The policy to be pursued by the great administrative Departments should be as much under the control of this House in Committee of Supply as the economical expenditure in carrying out that policy. In times gone by there have been many discussions, many Debates, and many Committees have been appointed on this matter, the granting of Supply, the Procedure, its defects, and the remedies by which the Procedure might be improved. I am not going over ancient history: I come at once to the Committee appointed during the present Parliament, the Committee appointed in 1888 on the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), the Committee on "Estimates Procedure (Grants of Supply)." That Committee consisted of 17 Members, and the Chairman was Lord Hartington, the present Duke of Devonshire. More than half the Committee were Members who had had long official or Parliamentary experience. That Committee made certain recommendations. They only had before them, for reasons they give in their Report, the Estimates for the Civil Service and Revenue Departments. There was a Committee sitting at that time on the Army and Navy Estimates, therefore the Committee left those Estimates out of view. I will quote two or three sentences from the Report of the Committee bearing on the point I have alluded to, the object with which we go into Committee of Supply. I may say that, with only minor exceptions, the Report of the Committee was arrived at with practical unanimity. The Committee addressed themselves to two points:— (1.) The extent to which economy and efficiency in the Public Service are secured by the examination of the Estimates in the Committee of Supply. (2.) The opportunity afforded by the review of the Civil expediture of the Government of bringing the administration of Home, Colonial, and Foreign Affairs under the attention of the House of Commons. They say, on the first point, "economy and efficiency in the Public Service:"— The actual reductions of the Votes by the Committee of Supply have been apparently slight in proportion to the amount of Parliamentary time occupied in the consideration of the Estimates. Your Committee are, however, of opinion that such reductions by no means represent the full economical effect of the examination to which the Votes are subjected, and they have no doubt that discussion in the Committee of Supply has had a considerable effect in preventing increase of expenditure. Then, with regard to the second point, the opportunity for bringing administration under the attention of the House of Commons, what I have called the "Policy" of administration, the Committee say— There can be no doubt that the opportunity which is afforded by annual discussion on the Estimates of raising many questions of policy and administration which may not be of sufficient general interest to demand or obtain the separate and special attention of the House itself is a valuable and useful privilege; and although these questions of policy may not always be raised in the most convenient or useful form, and may be complicated by much irrelevant and unimportant matter, subjects of interest, which might otherwise escape the attention of the House and of the public, receive in this way a certain amount of examination. I think those who have been in the House only for some six or seven years will find themselves in cordial agreement with these assertions of the Committee. And now I turn to the question as to how far, by the manner in which the Estimates have been presented during the present Parliament, these objects alluded to by the Committee and mentioned in my Resolution have been secured or frustrated. As the Committee of 1888 did, so I exclude the Army and Navy Estimates. And I also exclude all Votes on Account from the figures I am about to give. I will only take the Civil Service and Revenue Estimates actually voted in Committee of Supply, in what I may call the regular manner—that is, put from the Chair Vote by Vote, and not en bloc. During the five Sessions from 1887 to 1891 inclusive, the Votes for Civil Service and Revenue Departments reached the amount of £86,142,938. I have gone very carefully through every Vote of this sum in each Session of the present Parliament, and I have also made out a full statement of amounts voted during each month in each Session of the present Parliament. I will not, however, go through these figures, even a summary of them would weary the House, but I do propose to give the House the figures in this form: I will mention for each year the percentage of Supply that has been laid before the House at particular times of the year. I will not even go into each month, but I take it that the Votes taken before the last day of June have been put before the House at a reasonable time, and that the Votes from the 1st July onwards have been taken at what I will call an unreasonable time of the year. The figures on this basis are as follows:—In 1887 the amount voted, Vote by Vote, excluding Votes on Account, was £19,500,000, and of this amount £35 in each £100 was the amount voted before the end of June; in July £7, in August £35, and in September £23 out of every £100 voted. That is to say, in 1887, after 1st July no less than £65 of every £100 was voted. In 1888, out of £13,800,000, £12 out of every £100 was voted before the end of June, £1 10s. during July, £34 10s. in November, £52 in December—that is to say, £88 from every £100 was voted after 1st July. In 1889, total £20,500,000, of which £25 in the £100 was voted before the end of June, and £75 from every £100, in the month of August. In 1890, out of £20,000,000, £19 in the £100 was voted before the end of June, £35 in July, and £46 in August, or £81 of each £100 after 1st July. In 1891, of £21,250,000, £6 in the £100 was voted before the end of June, £52 in July, and £42 in August, so that last year £94 from every £100 was voted after 1st July. This is the briefest abstract, and I can assure hon. Members that on going through the mass of figures to make up this summary, I was astounded at the way Supply is laid before the House. But the case is much more striking on turning to individual figures. In 1887 it was not until a Saturday in August that the Education Vote for England and Wales was put before the House for consideration. In 1888, on Saturday, 15th December, no less than 22 Votes, raising £356,380, were put and agreed to. On the following Monday, 17th December, 13 Votes, for a total of £5,812,519, were carried. In 1889, on a Saturday, 16 Votes were put for £5,615,240, and in 1890, on 13th August, 48 Votes were passed for £5,616,657. In 1891, from 3 o'clock on Friday, 31st July, to 4.30 a.m. on Saturday, 1st August, 26 Votes in the Civil Service, Reserve Army and Navy Estimates, embracing no less than £16,500,000, were put and carried. Sixteen and a-half millions voted in Committee at a single Sitting! Figures like these are sufficiently startling, and if anyone takes the trouble, as I have taken the trouble, to wade through all the figures that go to bring out this summary, he will be as astounded as I was at the result. Only when we pass to the subjects of the Votes do we fully realise the extreme gravity of the matter. In the Civil Service Estimates for last year, 1890–91, there were 106 Votes in seven Classes. Now, I will take only one Class out of the seven, leaving out of account many Departments in that Class, such as the Lunacy Commission, Woods and Forests, and a great number of others. In Class II. we find included the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the Board of Trade, the Board of Agriculture, and the Local Government Board. If any hon. Member tries to realise what this catalogue of Departments really means in the Government of the country, he will not differ from me when I say that to secure anything like efficient control over policy and expenditure in the Departments, the Votes ought to be brought properly before us—I mean pat from the Chair early, reasonably, and regularly in the Session. Take the Home Office Vote alone. This one Vote, from one class of the Civil Service Estimates, as we know, embraces the salaries of the chief and subordinate officers, and upon this Vote questions of high policy can be raised, such as the control of factories and workshops, of explosives, of burial grounds, of the administration of Acts in reference to mines, coal and metalliferous, and a variety of other matters. We know perfectly well how this great Department of State, like others, is increasing and extending its purview every day, its work growing in importance, its agents increasing in number all over the country, and with this growth there is an increase in financial demands. Take the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, or any of these great Departments, and, I think, Mr. Speaker—for I am anxious not to trespass too long on the time of the House—I think that the facts and figures I have given are of themselves quite sufficient to show that by the system I have shown to exist, the control of the House of Commons over the policy and expenditure of the administrative Departments of the country must be and is grievously weakened, that this is a great and growing evil, and that the need for a remedy is urgent. Not only are the amounts increasing—I see there is an increase of over £1,000,000 sterling in the present Estimates over last year: This increase may be justified—I am expressing no opinion about that—the amounts, not only, as I have said, are increasing, but the variety of administration is growing. The increasing complexity of modern life, the demands arising in all directions which find expression in Bills brought in, in Motions and in various ways, these real and genuine demands naturally have a tendency to increase the power and importance of these great Departments. There is no question whatever that to preserve ourselves from the danger of falling into a bureaucratic system of the worst sort, of leaving control in the hands of permanent officials of more or less important grade rather than in the hands of the Parliamentary Chief whose tenure of office is from either side never very prolonged, it is essential that this House should keep a very firm grasp over the operations of the great Public Departments. Well, Mr. Speaker, of course, as we all find, it is easier to point out evils than to suggest remedies. It is quite evident to anyone who watches what is going on in the House, who has noted what has passed Session after Session, that we shall have to make further reforms in our Procedure. Of course, I am not going into that subject this evening. I will not even dwell on the limited proposals or recommendations of the Committee of 1888, and I avoid doing so for more than one reason, with only one of which I need trouble the House. My hon. Friend who will second my Motion (Mr. Sydney Buxton) has greater Parliamentary experience than I can pretend to, and he possibly may offer a suggestion. But one thing I will say. I freely acknowledge that the Government—I mean any Government, not merely the present Government—in these times, and under modern conditions, have a fair claim to more time than under the old Rules with respect to Mondays and Thursdays. If—and I merely throw out the suggestion tentatively, not in the form of a decided expression of opinion—if the Government would keep their hands off Wednesdays, I think they might be free to take possession of either Tuesday or Friday. But, as I say, I merely throw this out suggestively and tentatively. The Motion I have to submit to the House this evening is of a very modest character, as I think the First Lord of the Treasury will admit. It declares that the Estimates should be brought before Committee of Supply as early as is possible in each financial year, and on definite and regular days afterwards. I think we all admit that the uncertainty that hangs over the procedure of this House aggravates greatly the wear and tear and toil of Parliamentary life, and, therefore, if we can do anything whatever to lessen this we shall be doing not only that which will greatly add to our own comfort—which is, of course, a very small matter in comparison with that which we come here to do — but it will also really add to the public time in discharging the duties we have to discharge here. I wish in this connection most emphatically to disclaim one idea that has been attributed to me in connection with fixing definite and regular days for Supply. It has been said to me by Members of much greater experience than myself—If any Government bring forward their Supply on definite and regular days and at the commencement of the Session, it will open a field to prolonged discussion, and might lead to a waste of time that necessarily does not occur at the end of the Session. Now I deprecate as much as any hon. Member of the House the idea that there necessarily should be any prolonged discussion of Supply if it were brought forward on definite and regular days. I believe it would tend exactly in a contrary direction. When you have a Vote brought forward in Committee of Supply on a definite and regular day, there will be such a large number of Members interested that you will generally find that the discussion will be carried on in a more or less businesslike manner. It is when a Vote is brought forward at the Table unexpectedly, and when, perhaps, those who have an interest in the matter are absent from the House, you will find, for the most part, that a desultory discussion takes place. I look upon the waste of Parliamentary time as a Parliamentary sin; and I am perfectly ready to join with anybody to secure the suppression of any undue prolongation of remarks in Committee of Supply; because I believe if we had our Votes brought forward on certain fixed and regular days, those Members who would be legitimately interested in the matter would come more or less—and rather more than less — prepared to compress their remarks within a reasonable period. It is not only because I desire to put an end to the uncertainty of Parliamentary procedure that I move this Resolution, and to get some assurance from the Government in respect to it; it is on constitutional and economical grounds. I regard the functions of the House of Commons in Committee of Supply as in no way inferior to its legislative capacity. We may pass whatever laws we like; but if we maintain these great administrative Departments without keeping a firm grasp on them, the last state of things will be worse than the first. I press these views on the House and the Government with some confidence. I think I have shown that a grievance exists and an evil exists, and all of us have some responsibility with regard to finding a remedy. I beg to move my Resolution, and I commend it earnestly and respectfully to the attention of the House.

(9.34.) MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

In seconding this Resolution, I wish to disclaim—and I am sure my hon. Friend will join with me in disclaiming—that in this discussion we have any Party ends to serve. The question is one for the House and not a question of Party; and I do not know that the present Government have sinned more than their predecessors in past Sessions. What may be done in this particular Session, when we have a Leader of the House who has followers who will not follow him, remains to be seen; but up to the present moment I do not know that any particular Government can cast the first stone. I think my hon. Friend has done a considerable public service in introducing this question, because, although we had a Committee appointed three years ago to consider this matter, it was appointed without any previous discussion in the House, and I think the House will feel that a Committee, appointed in that way, is not likely to arrive at the same sort of conclusion as one which would be appointed after a proper discussion. Now, I think my hon. Friend behind me has clearly shown that something ought to be done in reference to the question of Supply. I must say that the facts and figures he brought forward were even more startling than I expected they would be; and everyone must appreciate the fact that the Parliamentary position has been very much altered in the last 25 years, when we are no longer in those days of Whig Government, when Lord Palmerston did nothing and Lord John Russell helped him to do it, or vice versa. But now, whatever Government is in Office, whether it is Conservative or Liberal, they find themselves obliged to introduce a large number of Bills, and to endeavour to pass them. Besides that, they have got Annual Supply; and now a larger number of Members, almost every year, take a greater interest — I think the hon. Member for Northampton once called it an intelligent interest — in these questions that arise in the House of Commons; and now the constituencies being more educated than they used to be take a far greater interest in what is going on in this House; and, therefore, a very much larger number than hitherto take part in discussions in this House. I was told a day or two ago by an old Member that when he first came into the House, some 30 or 40 years ago, not more at the outside than some 150 Members of the House took any part at all in the discussions that arose; but at present, I think I am not going above the mark when I say that at least 350 or 400 Members do take an interest and an active share in what is going on in this House of Commons. To a certain extent this has been accentuated by the new Rules of Procedure, which I, for one, most heartily support. I mean the Twelve o'Clock Rule that to a certain extent has been tempered by the Closure Rule. At the same time there is a limited amount of time at the disposal of the House; and, therefore, we find this position: that while there is more to do, there is less time to do it in. And we continue on the old theory on which we usually carried on business in this House: and we allow the Government two nights a week and private Members three nights a week. It seems to me that at the present moment that is a considerable anachronism; and as regards Supply, at all events we see that as the effect of the present procedure there is no regularity in carrying out Supply; that, as was once said in the House, there is a drought of Supply at the beginning of the Session and a deluge at the end. And the hon. Member pointed out, in reference to one particular year, that while only 11 per cent. was voted up to June, no less than 81 out of 100 was voted after the month of July, and that not less than 42 per cent. was voted in 48 hours, or two Sittings of this House. It seems to me that everyone must be agreed that that is not the way in which the business of the House, in regard to Supply, ought to be carried out; and there are many hon. Members who are convinced that the present mode of carrying out Supply is not right, and so far as regards the country outside they are in great sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, whose absence this evening I, for one, greatly regret. In a letter which he wrote to the Times, and which was afterwards re-published in the Procedure Committee, he said that the present system of Supply is waste of public time—that the great striking feature of carrying out Supply was waste of public time and inability to prevent waste of public money. As regards the latter point, I am not entirely in accord with him, because I think, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend behind me, that under the present procedure in Committee, while it is perfectly true this House of Commons by a vote very seldom or never cuts off a particular item of Supply, the result of our reiterated discussions is to carry through real economy in the Department, and it often happens that items which are discussed but are not cut off one year disappear from the Estimates the following year. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, who has been very active in these small matters of Supply, has been on more than one occasion successful not only in carrying a reduction of Votes, but preventing these Votes appearing again in the Estimates; but I agree with my hon. Friend behind me that, after all, the object of discussion in Supply is not so much the financial result of particular Votes, but it is general policy as well as actual expenditure, and it questions of administration, questions of policy, in which every Member of the House is interested. The hon. Member behind me has mentioned the case of education. We know that as regards education the question of policy is, in the main, inextricably mixed up with the question of Expenditure. Further, as to the question of education, on which is spent many millions a year, and an increased charge cast for it on the Public Revenue, we know that year after year, unless there is some very particular reason, as was the case three years ago, for giving to the Vote a somewhat thorough examination, this enormous sum of money is voted to public education without any discussion at all, and I look upon this item of Civil Service expenditure as perhaps the most important of our Annual Expenditure; but there are cases, in consequence of the way in which Supply is voted, where there is no opportunity of adequately discussing Votes. As regards these questions of financial control, and the question of due discussion of policy, I think my hon. Friend behind me has made out his case that there is great need for reform, and he has said that in saying this we ought also to point out what suggestions we have to make to the House and the Government. Well, there is one suggestion which carries with it the weight and support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, and the very tentative, half-hearted support of the Committee to which the hon. Member has referred, that the Financial Estimates every Session should be referred to a large Committee, or a grand Committee, to be threshed out there before they were brought to the House for discussion. I, for one, should very strongly object to such a policy or procedure as that. I look on it as a policy of despair, because it seems to me there is to that proposal an absolutely conclusive objection. In the first place, it is entirely contrary to the Constitutional system that this House of Commons ought to consider the items of public expenditure, and ought to consider the question of national grievances which may arise in connection with that expenditure; and I further think that it would tend very seriously to diminish the responsibility of the House for the different Departments if the Estimates we propose for the House of Commons were taken out of our hands, overhauled by a Committee, and looked at by a Committee, before they came to the House for discussion. We have, no doubt, an important Committee of the House, the Public Accounts Committee, to consider questions of public expenditure in reference to the different Departments. They consider the expenditure after the money is spent. They have to see that the money is properly expended, and I believe they do not weaken but strengthen the responsibility of each Department by ascertaining that the share of the money voted by this House has been applied to the proper purposes. But I believe that if you sent the Estimates to a Committee each year it would very considerably weaken the responsibility of the Treasury and other Departments in reference to the money that they come to ask this House to vote year by year; and I think this proposal also has this fatal objection—that it would unquestionably delay the discussion by this House of the Estimates. It would delay it still further than it does at present. It would not remove but aggravate the evil of which we complain—namely, that we take this discussion in the House not at a reasonable time of the Session, but only at the end, the fag end, the summer months of the Session; and I doubt also whether, as a matter of fact, the House would save much time as regards this matter, because it would be quite impossible for the House of Commons to refer to such a Committee as this either questions of policy or questions of administration. The only questions that could be referred to such a Committee would be the actual financial questions, questions of pounds, shillings, and pence, in reference to a particular expenditure; and the number of these which are discussed in Committee of Supply are not very enormous. The result would be that while Members of that Committee would have the trouble of going through the Estimates, the House of Commons would not be content to allow their discussion to be sufficient, but would be desirous to discuss these questions of policy over again when they came up to this House in Committee of Supply. And, further, there is this also to be said, as was suggested by one of the witnesses before the Committee of which my hon. Friend has spoken—that such a Committee as that would probably start a considerable number of new hares, which would be coursed in this House—questions which would not occur to themselves before they would be brought under their notice by this Committee, and lead to prolonged discussion. I believe that complicated arrangement would be a great mistake, and I do not believe that it would really save any of the time of the House. As regards this policy of delegation, I believe it would be surrounded with very considerable evils; but I believe that something might be done by the House itself, by the passing of a new Standing Order in regard to the matter. It is admitted that the evils from which we are really suffering is that Supply is not taken regularly; that it is carried to the end of the Session; that it is postponed to other Government measures and Government Bills; that the time given for Supply is taken for the discussion of Government measures; with the result that Supply goes to the wall, and is only taken at the fag end of the Session, and this is very much due to the fact that we do not allow, in this House, the Government sufficient time from the beginning of the Session. What is the result? By the present arrangement the Government obtain that time—but they obtain it practically—theoretically at the expense of private Members. Earlier and earlier every Session they make a sort of predatory incursion on the rights of private Members; and it has become now an habitual practice, especially for this Government, to introduce the Morning Sittings at a very early period of the Session—I believe at an earlier period this Session than any other previous Session. Such a system is bad for the Government and disastrous to private Members; bad for the Government because, in their case, two halves are not equal to a whole. They did not get through the same amount of Business in the two Morning Sittings as they would in one whole Night Sitting; because, in the first place, the end of a Morning Sitting is always in view, and when hon. Members see the end in view they are very often able to carry the Business on until that time arrives; and we have seen even during the two Morning Sittings which the Government have had that, while we began where we left off, in both cases we left off where we began; and practically, by means of these Morning Sittings, there has been no advance of Public Business more than before. With these two Morning Sittings, while the Government Business comes first for every day in the week except Wednesday, all questions of Private Business, all Adjournments of the House, all occasions for Divisions, are necessarily taken out of the time at their disposal; and they lose also what I think every Member of the House knows is a most valuable hour, the dinner hour; that hour is lost by rising for the Morning Sitting; and nobody benefits from them. As regards private Members, the great disadvantage to private Members of these Morning Sittings is that a private Member has to make a House at the most difficult hour of the 24—namely, 9 o'clock. If he can induce his Friends to come down to make a House at great inconvenience, they desire to sneak away at the earliest moment to enjoy themselves elsewhere; and whether the Government desire Morning Sittings or a whole night, it really is the greatest possible inconvenience, not only to the House, but to private Members especially, and the upshot of the matter is this—that while a private Member is deprived of his rights under certain circumstances, while he is unable to make a House or keep a House, his speech, which he has been obliged to keep bottled up, he brings out in Supply, and what the Government gain in measure they lose in malt. The suggestion which I venture to make is that the House should by Standing Order from the beginning of the Session, or from the time when Supply is set up, give the Government three nights out of the week, leaving Wednesday for private Members' Bills, and either Tuesdays or Fridays for private Members' nights. But I think if the House assent to such a proposal as that, we ought to couple it with this absolute condition—that one of these three nights, for the whole of the Session, should be from the beginning devoted to Supply—that Supply should be taken on that day every week throughout the whole of the Session. I believe that, under these circumstances, we should have a great improvement on the mode in which Supply at present is discussed. The Government, we know, often promise us when they take private Members' nights and time that they would devote one of those days weekly to Supply; but these good intentions are never realised. Why successive Governments are so reluctant to take Supply early in the Session, and why they make such slow progress with Supply, is because, under present circumstances, Supply interferes with the other Government measures. But if the Government had two nights in which they could carry through Bills, and one night in the week safe for Supply, these two things would run on parallel lines; and no delay in Supply would injure their position with regard to their Bills, and certainly there would be no tendency to this delay I have spoken of; but it seems to me that we should then have Supply discussed without ulterior motives; and I and my hon. Friend behind me believe that while a regular systematic practice to take Supply on one day of the week might seem to the House theoretically to consume a larger number of days throughout the Session, we believe in the end it would be found not to have that practical result, because if hon. Members knew that Supply was to be taken on a certain day they would come prepared for certain items in Supply, and discuss them in a proper and reasonable manner, with no ulterior motive of stopping the other Business; and all those frivolous discussions which we have in Supply would, I believe, entirely disappear, or very largely disappear, and we should find a much more businesslike discussion in Committee of Supply. At all events, we should have this advantage—that we should have Supply discussed with regularity, and should have it discussed systematically, and we should have this further advantage—that every class in Supply would have a proper opportunity of being discussed. What we want is that every class in Supply should be properly and legitimately discussed. I believe the discussion would be better and more important than it is at present. I must say I agree with my hon. Friend behind me in one remark, namely this: that one of the most harassing features of being a Member of this honourable House is that you never know from day to day where you are wanted, whether you can go down to your constituency or some friend's constituency, or carry out some other engagement you may wish to carry through. If we had the Business simply fixed on a particular day we should know how we stood. For three nights in the week, at all events, we should know how we stood, and be relieved of this harassing care which now, unfortunately, weighs so much on our minds and spirits. I do not believe, as I said just now, if you give this right definitely to the Government, that private Members would really suffer in the end. It would add to the hours of the Government without, I believe, doing away with what practical benefits are at present obtained by private Members; and this House ought to remember that, after all, discussions in Supply are opportunities for private Members; and, therefore, while to a certain extent theoretically they might have their time curtailed, I believe they would have better and greater opportunities of discussing matters in which they were interested; and as regards the Government, they would have, it is true, a certain amount more time, but they would not have it in a way which would encourage them to introduce more Bills. The great evil of all Governments seems to me to be that they always think at the beginning of a Session that they are going to carry about 20 big Bills, and at the end they find out but one little ewe-lamb which appeared in the Queen's Speech. Under this proposal which I venture to make the extra time they would get would be devoted necessarily to Supply, and they would not be induced to introduce a larger number of Bills. One other suggestion I venture to make, and that is this—that at the present moment the number of stages through which the Estimates go is something astounding. There was some very interesting evidence given by the honoured Clerk at the Table before the Committee, in which he pointed out that every item in Supply hon. Members, if they chose to do so, might discuss no less than 17 times in the course of a Session. It could be discussed on the Excess Vote, the Supplementary Vote, the Vote on Account, the Report stage, the Appropriation Bill, and in other ways. Of course, that, to a certain extent, is merely theoretical, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, if I may venture to say so, laid down a very good rule in reference to discussion on the Excess Vote, and items in the Supplementary Vote—namely, that discussion must be confined to sums asked for specific purposes, and which are asked for on the original Vote; and that therefore no discussion can take place unless an item is altogether a new one, as in the case of that African Railway the other night. I believe it would be an advantage for the House if these other proposals of mine were also adopted—if the discussion on Votes on Account were also very largely further limited. Under our present financial system, one Vote on Account is practically essential every Session; and yet on this Vote on Account every single item can be discussed by every Member—discussions which he can repeat in Committee of Supply or on the next Vote on Account; and I think, if there were a definite day given for Supply, that a large number of these stages might be very much curtailed. Now, I must apologise to the House for having detained them at such length. I venture, in conclusion, to make what the House may or may not consider a practical suggestion. We should like to hear the views of the Government, if they have any practical suggestion of their own to make; but I think every hon. Member feels this—that, after all, the object of hon. Members meeting here is to get through the Business of the House in a businesslike way, and before it is very late in the year; and we know quite well that, under the auspices of successive Governments, we do not do our business in a business-like way, and we never find for our Bills what we consider a fair and reasonable time; and therefore we all feel this—that the mode in which Supply is carried through the House is a reproach to the House of Commons. We vote enormous sums without adequate discussion; we discuss at enormous length very small items of very little importance. What we want to keep in the hands of the House is full and absolute control over those financial affairs, to discuss them in Supply; we want to be able to discuss them in a reasonable and practical spirit; so that grievances may be discussed; questions of policy and questions of expenditure may be properly considered in this House; and that when the end of the Session comes we shall have voted very nearly the whole of Supply, and not rushed through some eight or ten millions of money, as my hon. Friend pointed out, in the course of one or two Sittings. I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion, and hope I may consider that we have made a practical proposal which may lead to the advantage of Members of the House, and to the advantage of this great House of Commons.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in order to secure the efficient discharge of its function of control over the policy and expenditure of the administrative departments, this House is of opinion that the Estimates should be brought before Committee of Supply as early as is possible in each financial year, and on definite and regular days afterwards,"—(Mr. John Ellis,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

(10.5.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

No doubt the discussions which take place in Supply are useful. The reason is not that when a reduction is proposed in Supply the reduction is carried, for that is hardly ever the case, as Ministers naturally call upon their followers not to place them in a minority. Their followers come in here, and without looking into the matter, without having heard anything in respect of the matter, they simply vote in favour of the Estimate and against the Amendment. Why it is useful is because, if there was not this discussion on the part of the House even into minor details, there is no doubt, notwithstanding the efforts of the Treasury to check expenditure, expenditure would be a great deal higher than it is at present. The feeling on the part of Ministers, the feeling on the part of the Treasury, the feeling on the part of the Leader of the House, is, I do not say to put down successive Supply, but to put down as few Votes as possible, and still, owing to the arrangement of Business, undoubtedly the system of discussing supply is most unsatisfactory and very perfunctory at the present moment. The question is—why does that arise? To a certain extent, as the hon. Member has pointed out, every new Ministry when they come into power — every new Ministry when they commence a Session—are willing to gain glory for themselves, are willing to benefit the country and the Party to which they belong, by bringing forward a considerable number of measures which, to a certain extent, are non-political, but if apparently non-political are really Party in their nature; they want to pass these measures; they have a difficulty in passing them and in obtaining the power; and, therefore, as Supply has no particular friend, as no glory is to be gained by passing Supply, they put it off as far as possible and until the end of the Session. But I am perfectly willing to admit that there is sometimes a slight fault on the part of Opposition Members. Their remarks are sometimes somewhat lengthy. Members dwell a little too long upon small details. On this account the Opposition are sometimes what Ministers would call obstructive, no matter from which side the opposition came; and the Opposition would call it taking an excessive interest in public matters. But still that is the case, and I think the tendency is somewhat greater to obstruct in Supply in order to put off legislation on other matters. As to the proposal that the Government should take one day a week for Supply, I am not prepared to say that the Government of the day has at the present time its fair and full time in order to carry out the Government Business; but I think it would be better, instead of leaving one day to belong to Supply, if we give the Government the Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays, on the condition that they were devoted entirely to Supply, and also on the condition that the Government did not take away from Members, under any pretext whatever, the Evening Sittings. If you do that you will put Supply on one line of rail, yon will put Bills on another line of rail, and there will be no fear of collisions or one running into another, or one obstructing another. Sometimes it has occurred that Members obstruct in Supply in order to put off legislation; you will get entirely rid of that. I venture to make another suggestion. I would suggest that any Member should be allowed to move a count upon a particular subject; and if there are not 40 Members present when the subject is being discussed, the House should be able to go to the next Motion that is made. The House would then be able to say, "This measure is not exceedingly interesting; here is another one which is far more important," and so pass to that subject instead of getting up. I believe, if the right hon. Gentleman were to suggest this alteration in Public Business, he would meet with a very considerable amount of support on this side of the House, for we fully recognise on this side of the House that business is badly done. I believe it is owing to the bad arrangement of Business, and we are perfectly ready to join with the right hon. Gentleman in putting an end to this state of things. We are ready to afford every facility to the Government to bring in their Business, and at the same time having a chance of the Estimates being fairly—I will not say exhaustively—discussed.

(10.19.) DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

I join with the preceding speakers in disclaiming any intention of making this a Party matter. I think that all Governments are equally guilty in this respect, and that this Government is a little more guilty than previous Governments. I have been very much struck by the tone of the feeling of the country regarding the Estimates. Now, the expenditure is jealously criticised, whereas, under the old system, millions of public money was not unfrequently voted without any discussion at all. We know that our constituents are now beginning to demand a great deal fairer, fuller, and freer discussion of the Estimates and the expenditure of the country, from an uneasy feeling they have that they do not always get the full benefit of the money we vote in this House. It is, no doubt, quite true to say that hon. Members do not often succeed in effecting a reduction of Votes by discussions on the Estimates; yet I have known of several instances in which economies have been indirectly effected by discussions in this House, and I support the Motion of my hon. Friend largely in the interests of private Members. The opportunities of private Members are, in my experience, being gradually abolished, and their chances of doing anything gradually taken away from them. Everyone has not the oratorical ambition to shine in great Imperial Debates, and we are quite content to sit humbly on our back Benches and listen to the great oratorical performances of our leaders on the Front Benches, with whom, on those occasions, we have no desire to compete. But we know that the privileges of private Members are being encroached upon more and more every year, and every Session their days are taken away earlier. The opportunities for discussion are becoming small by degrees, and beautifully less; and the only chance we have of bringing forward any matters which concern our constituents is to bring them forward in Committee of Supply. One of the great difficulties we have in this House is the terrible uncertainty which characterises our Debates. The Votes are shuffled about to meet the exigencies of Debate, the convenience of the Members of the Government, and sometimes the convenience of their friends who sit beside them. Very often we are obliged to wait on here weary and uncertain hours, and then do not get our opportunities after all. I could bring forward many instances of this kind. Several years ago I was very much interested in the Medical Vote of the Army Estimates. The first Vote was taken somewhere about March, and the second, as I know to my cost, on the 10th August. I remember last year two Votes in which I was specially interested, and on which I desired to speak—the Science and Art Department and the National Gallery. They were taken in about two seconds on a Wednesday afternoon. These are the uncertainties which make the position of a private Member so difficult, and I think some plan ought to be brought forward by which the Votes should have proper precedence. Now you have Vote 1, and then, instead of having Vote 2, you base Vote 10 or 12, in order to suit the convenience of Ministers. It is this sort of thing which makes the position of the private Member difficult, and, at times, unbearable. There should be some regularity. At the end of the Session Supply is forced, and the money of the country is frequently voted in a lavish and uncertain manner, without any discussion whatever. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this important question, and I hope the Government may be able to suggest some means by which Votes in Supply may be brought forward earlier and with greater regularity.

(10.23.) MR. WEBB (Waterford, W.)

I have not had a long experience of the House; but as no other Irish Member has spoken, I should like to say a word with respect to the way in which the Business is divided and chopped up with respect to the Estimates. When the Business begins you never know when the next Vote in order will come on, and you have to wait and watch for the arrival of the Vote you desire to say something about. It seems to me almost as if this is done on purpose to get rid of the criticism of Members. It is done in order that people may not know when the Votes will come on, and it is painful to see the way in which enormous sums of money are voted in a very short time. The next Vote is for a large sum, and surely it would need a considerable amount of time and attention to discuss it properly. The Members from Ireland feel this particularly, because, although we know that the Government occasionally arrange Votes for our convenience, yet we find that those Members who cannot stop in London are put to great inconvenience in coming backwards and forwards, in the vain endeavour to keep up with Business. But there is a wider question—that in the Votes relating to India. Our duties with respect to that country are becoming greater and greater, and I think the way in which the Indian Vote is rushed through is something shameful. That Vote, of all others, requires care and attention, and as we more and more feel our responsibilities, that Vote should have as long a period of time as possible. The Rules of the House make matters so difficult that initiative becomes increasingly difficult, and I think that only a very small number of Members can be interested in bolstering up the present system. The hon. Member gave reasons for the present state of things. I think it largely arises from the increased conscientiousness of Members. It arises very largely from the increased complexity of life. Not many years ago our requirements were much smaller than they are now, and the doctrine of laissez faire was more believed in. The theory of this House is a perfectly fair one—namely, that every Member has an opportunity of taking part in every turn of its proceedings and at every step of a measure; but it is impossible for that to be carried out. Every Session the condition of things is acknowledged and deplored, and great changes have been made in the Procedure Rules, such as the introduction of the Closure, but yet it is found that the work is more and more difficult to carry through. It appears to me that matters are growing worse and worse, and the only possible cure would be a complete devolution of the duties and responsibilities of Members to localities.

(10.34.) MR. MORTON (Peterborough)

I have to thank the hon. Member not only for bringing this matter forward, but for the concise way in which he has explained the difficulties under which we labour. The most important duty we have to perform here is to look after the expenditure of public money; therefore I think we are right in considering how we can best criticise this expenditure. I will not go into all the matters which my hon Friend has brought before the House, but I think a sufficient proof of the necessity for a change is afforded by the fact that on one occasion last Session, the 31st July, we passed Votes amounting to £16,000,000 after 12 o'clock at night. There was no pretence that we had a proper opportunity for discussing the matter, and that was so on many other occasions with respect to matters which we certainly ought to have discussed. A great many remedies have been proposed, and a suggestion has been made that we could get out of the difficulty by having Financial Committees, to whom these Votes could be submitted before they came to the House. That would, of course, get rid of the difficulty of considering the expenditure, but I am not sure that the proposal is either safe or wise. Were we to discuss these matters in Committee of the whole House, there is a chance that reports will be published in the papers, and, therefore, will be considered by the people of this country. I know some people object that we should talk to the newspapers, but I say that they represent our masters. The citizens, the taxpayers cannot attend here to hear our discussions, and hence the importance of having them properly reported. The discussion of the expenditure of our money ought to be taken in the most public manner, so that it should be reported for the benefit of the taxpayer. I would not object to Financial Committees if you could insure that the proceedings of these Financial Committees should be reported. I think, probably, we could get over the difficulty best if the Government would only undertake to bring forward these Supplies and Estimates early in the Session, if they would also bring them forward on regular days, so that we could know when we ought to be here to discuss them on those days. That would not cause the time of the House or the Committee to be taken up so much by other matters, which practically prevent the Estimates being discussed. I remember, even during this Session, we had Supply with regard to the Supplementary Estimates at a very late hour—namely, after 11 o'clock; and before anyone could tell that Supply had commenced five or six Votes had passed through Committee without any opportunity of discussion at all, simply because were not aware they had come on. I trust, therefore, the Government will, so far as they are able, pledge themselves to bring forward consideration of Supply in Committee as soon as possible, and bring it forward in a regular manner, so that we may have a proper opportunity of discussing it. We have been, in discussions on the expenditure of money, told that there are two matters—one the expenditure of the Government, and the other the question of economy in expenditure. I can quite understand, with regard to the policy, that it is a very different question from the other, and that the Government may be right in making all these questions Party questions, and calling upon their followers to vote for them in any case. But I think, with regard to the economy of expenditure, it would be an exceedingly wise thing for the Government of this country if we were allowed to discuss all these matters without that strict regard to making it merely a Party vote and the Government calling upon their followers to vote the money whether they thought it right or not, or whether they themselves knew anything about it. There is no doubt the Government simply tell their followers that they must pass the money as proposed, or that the Government will have to go out of office. I do not think that is fair, or that it in any way allows a fair opportunity of discussing the expenditure of money in the business-like way in which it ought to be discussed. There is no doubt, on account of the increased interest taken in these matters by the taxpayers of the country, instead of there being less time in the future required for consideration of such matters, there will be a great deal more time required, and probably there will be a great many more subjects to be considered in connection with the expenditure of money than there have been before. I think there are a great many items put on the Consolidated Fund which we shall have to find some means of discussing, because they are matters which require criticism and must be considered. That will cause the necessity for increased time. I notice in the Returns which have been placed before us it is a very customary thing for several Departments of the Government to take an excess of money if they want a Vote, and to expend it on other matters which are not mentioned in the Vote at all. I understand from the Papers on Supply presented lately that the Treasury themselves have complained that money is taken from one Vote and expended on matters which the Treasury thinks the House ought to have had an opportunity of considering, so that in that way, if we do our duty, there will be other matters on which money is now spent without any consideration at all that we shall have to insist, either by Supplementary Votes or otherwise, on having an opportunity of discussing, so that we may see whether they are matters on which public money ought to be properly expended. I have no doubt any Minister, no matter to what Government he belongs, will always welcome, rather than otherwise, independent criticism with regard to these Votes, because I am perfectly well aware the difficulty is not so much with the Members of the Government themselves as with the Departments; and I have no doubt, when there is proper criticism of these Votes in this House, it enables Ministers who desire to do their duty to guard and control the Departments which are always most anxious to expend more money. I therefore take it for granted that a good Minister would rather welcome criticism than otherwise, so as to strengthen him in refusing those demands which come from the Departments. It must be notorious to every Member of this House that we have more business to do than we can properly attend to. Therefore, no matter what the discussion is about, it seems always to come back to the question, you will find, of granting Home Rule to Ireland or other nationalities with a view to them taking away a great deal of the Business of this House, so as to allow us proper time for these questions of expenditure. Such a discussion should be welcomed, because it will show the country as soon as possible that we are adopting the policy set out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone). All parties in this House would be wise if they considered properly the devolution of a great deal of Business that comes before this House, so that we should have time properly to consider this expenditure of public money. I should like to ask the Government to bear in mind that this is not our money—it is the money of the people of this country, and we ought to consider it as such, and treat it in the same way as if we were considering the expenditure of our own money. And, if we did so, we should more properly criticise these Votes and insist upon having proper time to do so.

(10.45.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

I am sorry on the present occasion that we have not had the advantage of the presence and speech or advice of any of the Members of the Front Opposition Bench, who are accustomed and entitled to deal with the Business of the House. But, in the absence of this assistance I have only to express the views of the Government on the Debate to which we have just listened. I have listened to the Debate with great interest, and have noticed that hon. Member after hon. Member opposite appeared to take much less interest in the rights of private Members than we have been accustomed to expect. To-night, to my surprise, one after another of the hon. Members informed the House, firstly, that private Members have a great deal too much time; and, in the second place, that the idea of asking the Government to keep a House for private Members, on subjects in which they were not sufficiently interested, was preposterous. There was a time when the Government could not suggest taking any time for Supply without hon. Members rising up on all sides and protesting against the omnivorous appetite of the Government. I do not know how I can explain this, unless, possibly, hon. Members opposite are beginning to believe their own reiterated declaration that they are going to change places with us and so they will have a greater interest in the expeditious conduct of Public Business than they have at present. I was also interested to note the very candid and almost naïve declaration of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He told us that in his experience he was aware that Estimates had often been unduly prolonged for the purpose of preventing the Government getting through their work. The same thing happened this year as last year, and he evidently spoke from the impressions of a recent and vivid experience. No doubt what he assured the House of is perfectly correct, and no man in the House has a better title to speak from authority upon this interesting and important question. While I note with satisfaction this new-born desire to get rid of the rights of private Members to give further time to the Government for Public Business, I do not know that I can give my assent to any of the special plans which have been suggested by the hon. Member for carrying out that desirable object. The proposal made by the hon. Member who proposed the Motion (Mr. John Ellis) and agreed to, not in its details, but in its substance, by subsequent speakers, broadly speaking I understand to be that from the beginning to the end of the Session one day in the week, Tuesday or Friday, should be set apart hereafter for the purposes of Supply, and that whatever might be the pressure of Public Business in other Departments, whatever desire the House might have for continuing the discussion upon an important Public Bill, this particular night should be remorselessly adjudged for the purpose of discussing Supply. I am perfectly willing to admit that discussions in Supply are very useful and important, but I cannot honestly say that they conduce to economy. Useful they may be, and often are, but they are not discussions by which the Ministers responsible for the Estimates have any arguments put before them which would induce them to diminish the amount they propose to expend. The hon. Member for Northampton will admit that in his experience the number of occasions on which Votes have been reduced is very small. Practically they have had to be discussed, not as a guarantee of economy, but as a guarantee that the money which was taken was expended to the best advantage. I cannot bring myself to attach much value, from that point of view, to the Debates which take place in the House in Committee. Let anybody cast his mind back over our discussions—let us exclude the occasions delicately alluded to by the hon. Member for Northampton, where the object of discussion is not economy, is not public policy, but is obstruction, pure and simple—take what I may call the more legitimate discussions in Committee of Supply. How many of these really are of a kind which, under any possible circumstances, could conduce, or do conduce, to economy? Useful discussions they may be—useful discussions I believe they often are; but they are not, and cannot, I believe, be discussions by which the Minister responsible for the Estimates has any considerations put before him to diminish the amount which he proposes to Parliament to expend. On the contrary, so far as my experience goes, when the discussion really turns, as it very seldom does, on the amount of the money, the desire of hon. Gentlemen who criticise the Estimates is not to diminish the amount of money, but rather to increase it. Everybody will admit that if a representative Minister in this House permitted private Members to move an increase of the Votes as well as the reduction of the Votes, the number of increases of the Votes would be enormously in excess of the number of reductions, and this is most natural. The real check, and the only check, upon the expenditure in this House is not any action by the House or any Members of the House in the Committee of Supply—it is the determination of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury of the day that they will not, if they possibly can help it, come down and ask for new taxation. Discussions in detail in Committee of Supply are not, on the whole, a check which is of the slightest value in the direction of economy. I admit that the discussion is valuable and important, not from a financial but from a political point of view. It has the effect of turning something like criticism upon almost every act of the Executive Government. Very often it is useful in this place, and though I think that much of the criticism is misplaced—and when we are in Office very much misplaced—I feel its value very strongly. I believe any Government freed from that criticism might, perhaps, fall into lax habits very detrimental to the public interest. But observe the consequences you have to deduce from that conclusion, if accepted by the House. The House would have to admit that Supply ought not to be regarded as Government Business, or rather that the nights devoted to Supply ought not to be so much regarded as Government nights as private Members' nights. Nights in Supply are nights in which private Members have a free hand to discuss as much as they like, and as long as they like, the acts of the Executive Government. Valuable as that privilege is, from a public point of view, it cannot be indulged in without limit if we are to get through any Business at all beyond the Business of Supply itself. When, in 1889, an attempt was made by the Government to carry out something like the suggestion of the Mover of this Motion, Tuesday was itself set apart very early in the Session for the purpose of dealing with Supply, and the result was that we got on with Supply at the rate of about two and a half Votes every Tuesday morning. There are, roughly speaking, about twenty-four weeks in a Parliamentary Session, and 108 Votes to be got through, and I leave the House to do the calculation for itself as to the amount of business we should get through if we had to content ourselves with Tuesday mornings, and to get through the Votes at the rate of two and a half Votes a night.

MR. J. E. ELLIS

When was the precedent for those figures?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

In 1889.

MR. J. E. ELLIS

There was much greater progress than that.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

At the Sittings in March, April, and May the average was two and a half Votes a Sitting. Therefore, I do not think you would get through your business on that principle, and I do not believe, even if you got through it, you would do so in a very convenient fashion. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a certain absurdity in the extremely slow rate at which we get through the Votes in the earlier part of the Session, and the extreme rapidity with which we get through them in the latter part of the Session; but that is not the fault of the Government. I notice with some amusement and surprise that whenever anything goes wrong with the Business of the House the Government is supposed to be responsible, but I fail to grasp the reasoning by which that conclusion is arrived at. We got slowly through Votes early in the Session because hon. Gentlemen have not exhausted their rhetoric; we get through them rapidly at the end of the Session because hon. Gentlemen are absolutely sick of the House, and are pining to get away from it. Is it the fault of the Government that hon. Gentlemen talk too much in March, and is it the fault of the Government that they talk too little in July? We have no control over the rhetoric of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have not got our hands on the throttle-valve of hon. Members' eloquence. I wish we had, Mr. Speaker; and then, I can assure the House, if they would only entrust me with the determination of the exact period which each Gentleman should occupy in discussing a Vote, and the exact length of time that Vote should occupy, there would be a perfectly even-handed justice as between one Vote and another. We should all get away long before the end of July. Until we have control, and that kind of control, over the eloquence of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I confess I fail to understand how we can be blamed either for the undue length of hon. Members' remarks in March, when they are fresh from their holidays, or for the undue brevity of them when they begin to long for another holiday. While I disclaim all responsibility for the unequal distribution of rhetoric as between one Vote and another at different times of the year, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that you cannot estimate, as he appears to estimate, the importance of a Vote from the amount of money involved.

MR. J. E. ELLIS

I hope I did not convey that.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman gave some very interesting statistics as to the amount of money voted in March, before the end of June, before the end of July, and before the end of August in each year. But you cannot estimate the amount of discussion on a Vote by the amount of the Vote. It is clear that a Vote of £100 may raise a question of enormous importance, which deserves to be discussed for, say, two nights, while a Vote of a million may be, and perhaps ought to be, passed without a word. The amount of money may be a rough estimate of the amount of discussion, but the House will agree that it is a very rough estimate. There is another point in this matter which ought not to be lost sight of. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman, endorsed by the Seconder, and by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), was that one night every week should be devoted to Supply; but I think I am speaking the sentiment of every man who hears me in saying that when the House once gets on a great subject, it leaves it with reluctance, and always at the cost of some disadvantage. If you were discussing in Committee the clauses of some great Bill, it is inconvenient from every point of view that on one or two nights in the week the House should have its mind suddenly diverted from that subject, and have it turned to something of quite a different kind. But there is a third inconvenience I have to suggest, which will commend itself to the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). If you are to pursue the course which the hon. Gentleman suggested, it must be adopted in regard to the Irish Estimates as well, and to the Scotch Estimates as to the Irish Estimates. The result would be that the Irish Members would find the Irish Estimates spread over, not a couple of weeks, but over three months, at our ordinary rate of progress, in the discussion of their Estimates. I think they would find that very inconvenient, and that the Secretary for Ireland would find it very inconvenient also. We have always endeavoured, since I have been in the House, to meet the convenience of Irish Members in the discussion of the many points they wish to bring before us, by keeping the Irish Estimates together, and discussing them from end to end.

MR. J. E. ELLIS

I suggested one day in the week as a minimum.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If we are to give one night in the week to Supply, it would not be possible for the Government to suit the convenience of Irish and Scotch Members by giving them a week or ten days to discuss straight off—en bloc—the particular Estimates in which they are interested. It would be found inconvenient, both from the point of view of great Public Bills, and from the point of view of Supply itself, to take the Votes in the piecemeal fashion which the hon. Gentleman has suggested. If the Army Estimates, for example, were to be discussed on successive Fridays, I believe they would take a great deal longer than they do now. Why it is that a discussion cut in two by the interval of a week should require many more hours for its completion than when taken from day to day I do not know. No doubt the reason is to be found deep down in the springs of human nature. Undoubtedly it is the fact that when there is such an interval hon. Members are furnished with a larger armament of arguments than when the discussion is continued day by day. I do not believe that we should get through the Votes more rapidly in this fashion, and it would be more inconvenient. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the desire of the Government, now as ever, is to give full time for discussion in Committee of Supply. I feel sure that the discussions in Committee of Supply are extremely valuable. In my opinion, the time devoted to them is by far the most valuable time we give to private Members' discussions at all. I attach much greater value to it from a public point of view than to the perfunctory debates on very important subjects started by private Members on Tuesdays and Fridays. I frankly admit that the criticism of this or any Government by the House in Committee of Supply is invaluable, and I should be very sorry to be an instrument for in any way unduly curtailing it. But I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to ask the House to affirm a desire which would rather unduly restrict the freedom of those who have to arrange the Business of the House. It would not, I believe, conduce to rapid or fair discussion of the Estimates, and would certainly interfere with the free discussion of great Public Bills, and would be looked upon as seriously inconvenient by Members from Ireland and Scotland when they came to discuss those Estimates in which those two countries are specially interested. For these reasons I hope the hon. Gentleman will be content with the general expression of the sympathy of the Government with the views he has expressed, and that he will not ask this House, or any House which may succeed it, to limit the reasonable freedom accorded to the Minister in charge of the House, which would inflict great inconvenience without any adequate and commensurate advantage to private Members.

MR. J. E. ELLIS

I fully appreciate the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman, speaking with a greater experience of the House than I have had, has dealt with the subject. My object has been fully served, and I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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