CLASS I. (Hansard, 2 March 1893)

MR. E. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)
said, he would like to say a few words on the Vote and move a reduction. The changes that had been made in the rooms of the House were by no means to the advantage of Members generally. They were chiefly made to convenience hon. Gentlemen on the two Front Benches. For example, the Whips had been very largely considered. The Committee was appointed to deal with the matter so that additional accommodation might be arranged for the Business in connection with this House; but, except in so far as the Whips were concerned, nothing of a satisfactory character had been done. The Surveyor of the Board of Works was called before the Committee, and 872 he advised that a larger number of rooms should be provided. He advised, in the first place, that the Hansard Room should be in another part of the House. The consequence was that that room had been removed to another and a most inconvenient part of the House. He had the utmost difficulty in finding where the room was. He had to go down a circuitous staircase and several dark passages before he could discover it. He regretted that Mr. H. M. Stanley had not been elected to the House, as, had he been, he could have assisted them to explore the passages leading to this new room. A Member might have to go to that room during a Debate, and, not hearing the Division Bell, might be shut out from the Division. Again, until now they had five Deputation Rooms. The number had been diminished by two or three. Hon. Members who were supporting and opposing a certain measure, the Direct Veto, for instance, might have to receive these opposing deputations at different ends of the same room, or rather, passage. Then there was a very useful body of men, the Members' secretaries, who had now only one room set apart for them, and it was not adequate for their requirements. Mr. Taylor, the Surveyor to whom he had alluded, pointed out before the Committee that there were two rooms not allocated. One of these rooms had been appropriated to gentlemen who took notes for the newspapers in the Lobby, but he understood that there was no furniture in it, and it was absolutely useless for the purpose for which it was intended. Mr. Jenkins stated that there was no place where Civil servants attending under the Gallery in order to aid Ministers in any business which might be before the House could arrange the important papers. Mr. Jenkins was allowed to go into the Public Bill Office for that purpose, but that was by the courtesy of the head of that office. Men in the high position of those gentlemen, who attended to instruct the Ministers of the Crown, ought not to be subjected to such inconvenience. The whole of the £3,000 spent on the alterations had been more or less thrown away, because, he believed, the expenditure was of a temporary character. The House of Commons and its offices were constructed at a time when the pressure of Public Business and the 873 attendance of Members were a great deal less than they were now. Out of the 670 Members of the House there were often 600 present. That was not the case in former days, for the Business was then a great deal less than at present. Whether they were or were not to retain the Irish Members, there was in reality not sufficient accommodation for the transaction of the Business of Parliament. Before spending any more money on these make shift arrangements, the question ought to be looked at in a much broader and more comprehensive spirit. A Committee sat in 1867 and 1868 to inquire into the matter, and they found that the pressure was very great, because at that time a Reform Bill was before the House. But at the present time a vast number of burning questions came before the House with kaleidoscopic rapidity. The Committee of 1867–68 reported that the accommodation of the House was inadequate, and there had been no improvement since then—

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. MELLOR)
The present Vote is for alterations recommended by the Select Committee of 1892, and we cannot go into what happened long ago—in 1867 or 1868.

MR. WEBSTER
said, it was regrettable that the Committee of last year did not have before it the Report of the Committee of 1867 and 1868. Mr. John Taylor, and he thought also Mr. Palgrave, were no doubt examined before the Committee of last Session, but he held that the scope of the Reference to the Committee would have allowed them to consider the whole subject of accommodation in a broader aspect before recommending the expenditure of £3,000, or any other sum, on these petty and mainly useless alterations. He did not deny the removal of the bar had, no doubt, improved the look of the Members' Lobby, but it was like one of those puritanical pruderies of the Radicals who objected to public-houses being open till 12 p.m. because they were en evidence, but allowed bogus clubs to be open all night for drinking purposes, if they were hid from sight. He ventured to say the Committee should have gone into the matter at length, and considered all the details. He did not desire to disobey the ruling of the Chair, but in his opinion the expenditure had been absolutely wasted, 874 and he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

§ MR. J. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick)
said, there was one class of gentlemen for whom a great deal had been done, and it was a class for whom he had often expressed his admiration—he meant the Whips on both sides; but he felt that these alterations had been made simply in the interests of the Whips, and of nobody else. It was their business to look after the Members of the House, but in this case they had certainly looked after No. 1. A very serious responsibility rested on the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) for an alteration which had been made at his instance—he meant the removal of the bar from the Lobby to a more private place, which must have encouraged secret drinking. He thought it had encouraged secret drinking, and he should move for a Return in order to ascertain what had been the increase in the consumption of liquor which had taken place in the Lobby now that Members did not take their refreshments under the observance of the public eye. Members now had to push a door open as was necessary in the "jug and bottle" department of a public-house. With regard to the accommodation in the Conference Rooms, it was most inadequate. Strangers who came to the House to confer with Members could either be seen in the Lobbies or the Smoking Room (where many gentlemen strongly objected to an atmosphere of tobacco and whisky-and-water), or they might be taken into one of the little Conference Rooms. These rooms, however, as now arranged, were most uncomfortable. They were really only passages through which people were constantly moving to and fro. He thought a more satisfactory arrangement should have been made; in fact, before proceeding to improve the accommodation of the Whips, a little more comfort should have been provided for the House generally. During the summer strangers could be taken outside on to the Terrace, but it must be remembered that for two-thirds of the year our climate made walks 3n the Terrace almost impossible. The 875 House of Commons had been called the best club in the world, but to his mind it was the most uncomfortable, as it was the most expensive club for strangers to visit. He thought there was room for improvement in the accommodation for Civil servants, and he was also of opinion that, instead of being turned into the Lobby leading to the Central Hall when the Division Bell rang, these gentlemen should be allowed to go into the Members' Gallery. Then the members of the Press (as Mr. Shaw, of the Press Association, had pointed out in a letter to the Serjeant-at-Arms) had ground for complaint in the entire absence of accommodation for them to write out their notes in the Lobby. They had a room, but it was a considerable distance from the Lobby. This building was a vast one; but whenever accommodation was wanted in it for any purpose they were told, "Oh, there is not a room anywhere." The fact was, there was plenty of room, but the arrangements were imperfect. He should be out of Order if he endeavoured to raise the larger question of the accommodation in the House generally; but what had been said to-night showed how necessary it was, if there was to be any comfort outside this Chamber, that there should be a more perfect utilisation of the space than had entered into the minds of the Chairman and Members of this Committee.

§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
regretted that he could not raise the whole question of the re-arrangement of the space in the building. The Committee had been appointed to consider "the re-arrangement of rooms;" therefore, he should have thought it would have been competent for a Member to go into the general question. It seemed to him that the Committee had lost a great opportunity of dealing with the whole question. What they had done was anything but satisfactory for the convenience and accommodation of Members, and the amount expended had been great and quite out of proportion to any advantage which had accrued. He did not think the accommodation was at all too good for the Whips, particularly the Opposition Whips. As for the Conference Booms, they were a Scandal to the House, and would not be tolerated in a second-rate house of business. They were not fit places for Members to re- 876 ceive deputations from their constituents in. In regard to the Lobby Refreshment Bar, though he did not make use of it much himself, he asserted that it was a most inconvenient place. It had been put into a back corner, and was a hot, stuffy room, and the only advantage the Temperance Party had secured by the re-arrangement was the ornamentation of the back of the Bar with a large number of empty champagne bottles advertising the fact that that beverage might be purchased there. Everyone would admit that the alterations were not advantageous, and that the Conference Rooms were very uncomfortable, and, coming to the question of expense, as a Representative of the taxpayers he protested against £3,000 having been spent on these alterations. There was evidently something quite wrong in the way in which these affairs were looked after. The accommodation of Members was a matter of great concern to them, and it was a matter of comparative unimportance whether it cost £3,000 or £6,000 so long as it was all that it should be. As a matter of fact, however, the Committee had only recommended two or three little changes on the fringe of the subject, and had succeeded in making Members more uncomfortable than they were before. It was idle to say that what was suitable 40 or 50 years ago was suitable now, and he must say he thought the Committee had wasted a great opportunity. He should support his hon. Friend in his protest against this Estimate, and trusted that a Division would be taken.

§ SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)
said, he had taken great interest in this question, and had found that the two Front Benches utterly ignored the convenience of private Members. It did not concern them at all. They had private rooms reserved for them in the House, and every other accommodation. But it did concern private Members like the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Parker Smith) and himself, who were nearly always in their places, and who spent a great deal of time within the precincts of the House. The other day, with two other Members of Parliament, he had to receive four gentlemen. To find a room they had to go a long way, and before commencing their business they had to 877 disturb several other sets of gentlemen. Though they only occupied half an hour with their conference, they were interrupted 9 or 10 times. To his mind, the changes which had been effected 'were a disadvantage, and to call them "improvements" was an absurd misnomer. With regard to the removal of the Hansard Room, he had not up to the present time succeeded in finding the new office. It was not a convenience to private Members to have this office where nobody could find it, though, no doubt, it might be a convenience to Ministers by preventing Members from making references and obtaining quotations. Then there was the question of access to the bar. It was absurd that the means of getting at the bar should be through a door through which two Members could not pass conveniently at the same time. When a Member got through the door he had to push through several other Members, and the apartment was so small that, according to the best calculation, not more than 12 or 14 Members could stand there together. He trusted that the bar would be replaced in the position it formerly occupied. So far as he had been able to see, everything that had been done for the "improvement" of the House had been to the disadvantage of private Members, and the only thing that had been gained by the expenditure of £3,000 was the provision of better rooms for the Whips. He quite agreed that the House ought to afford the Whips reasonable accommodation, but he did not see why other Members should suffer because the Whips were treated properly. The Committee ought, in his opinion, to mark its sense of the mistake that had been committed by voting the reduction of the Estimate. The general convenience of the House had not been consulted, and the money had not been well spent.

§ MR. PLUNKET (Dublin University)
thought it only fair that as he was primarily responsible at the time when the Committee on whose Reports these alterations were made held its sittings, he should explain the nature of the task that had been assigned to that Committee. He did not himself concur altogether in the criticism which had been passed upon the alterations carried out. With regard to the Hansard Room downstairs, 878 he might point out that it was not as far from the door of the House as was the old Hansard Room, and, as to Members not being able to hear the Division Bell there, he was quite sure that if such were the case the First Commissioner of Works, would at once see that the matter was set right. With regard to the new Conference Rooms, his recollection was—although he could not speak with certainty on the point—that the cubic space of the rooms was the same, or was almost identical with that of the old rooms. Of course, it would be much more agreeable if there were abundant space to dispose of for the convenience of Members; but the present Deputation Rooms were, it must be remembered, an improvement of recent times, no such rooms having been provided in the old days at all. He wished to call attention to the fact that the Reference to the Committee of last year precluded it from dealing with the larger questions as to the future arrangement of the House which had been brought forward during the discussion. The Committee were asked to consider the arrangement of the rooms contiguous to the Members' Lobby, and had nothing to do with anything else. It had been said that the work had already been carried out with the object of giving greater convenience to the Whips of the various Parties. He could assure hon. Members that that was not the purpose for which the Committee sat at all. The main object was to arrange the Members' Lobby itself; and he was bound to say that, whatever the convenience or inconvenience of the present arrangements were, there had been an enormous improvement in the appearance of the Lobby, and there was now considerably more space than there used to be for the use of Members. The main object was to get rid of the Refreshment Bar, which then stood in the Lobby, and to arrange the Post Office and the other rooms in a more convenient way. The recasting of the Whips' Rooms was a mere accidental circumstance which grew out of the alterations. He claimed that, as far as the main object was concerned, the Committee had been very successful. As to the expense, he did not think that for the changes which had been made the sum of £3,000 was at all excessive. Two witnesses had been examined by the 879 Committee. One of these was Mr. John Taylor, of the Office of Works, than whom the House could not have had a more competent adviser, and who had for many years past succeeded in greatly conducing to the convenience of the arrangements of the various rooms, and adding to the comfort of Members who had to spend a considerable time in the House. Many of the criticisms which had been made appeared to be entirely new. He could not say he shared in them, and he believed that, generally speaking, the changes which had been carried out had given satisfaction to Members.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)
said, he did not desire to occupy any further the time of the Committee with this matter, but he might say that he was glad be had introduced it. His sole object was to secure economy. He had no objection to providing rooms for the use of the Whips; but the interests of other Members of the House ought to be considered. He did not blame the present Commissioner of Works so much; he was not responsible. The late Commissioner was the official who had charge of the Committee; but, unfortunately, they had to remember that the present Commissioner was in reality the official responsible to Parliament. He admitted at once that he (Mr. Morton) might be responsible for the alteration in connection with the bar—responsible so far as appearance went; but he was not inclined to be dissatisfied, because he found from what had been said that night that hon. Members could not always get into the bar as at present constructed, and, from the point of view of temperance, that was a great advantage. On the whole, the change spoke well for the advance of temperance principles in the House. Any change that had taken place was a change for the better. They had heard that the change might—and, in fact, it had been said did—lead to secret drinking. That might be in some cases; but how did the hon. Gentleman who spoke of secret drinking know anything about its going on? However, what he was mostly concerned in was the question of economy, and he wanted to know from the Government how much more these 880 works were likely to cost? What were they going to do with the money voted last year and not spent? £320 had been provided for double windows in the Members' Dining Room and other rooms; but the windows had not been provided, and he assumed the money had not been spent.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
That is not included in this Estimate, and cannot be discussed.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, that was so, but when a sum had not been spent it should be returned to the Treasury, and not spent on other objects without the consent of the House of Commons. He was entitled to speak on the question of economy, and he was anxious to have the actual cost, and he would like to know also from the right hon. Gentleman when he replied whether the Bar Room which had been provided was to be supplied with whisky and intoxicating liquors only?

§ MR. MORTON
said, they were entitled to have tea and coffee provided in that place for those who did not indulge in whisky drinking. If they supplied tea and coffee those who went into the bar might be induced to take either one or the other instead of whisky—and it would be much better for them. That was one of the reasons why he rejoiced at the removal of the bar from the Lobby. Its removal meant the removal of temptation from Members; and he was sorry to say it was within their knowledge and they were aware that the bar in the Lobby had been the ruin of some Members of the House. He was most anxious that the bar should be removed. Having done that, they should go further and supply tea and coffee. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner would say that he had nothing to do with supplying tea and coffee, but the right hon. Gentleman had provided the means of supplying both, and he (Mr. Morton) hoped they would be supplied. In these days of temperance they in the Parliament of Great Britain should set an example to the rest of the country. He would only say, in conclusion, that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman 881 would be able to give some satisfactory reply to questions which had been put to him.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVKE,) Bradford, Central
The hon. Gentleman asks one or two questions which I think I can answer to his satisfaction. In the first place, he wants to know whether all the work is included in the Estimate. Yes; all the work to be done is included in the Estimate that is now before the House. The sum mentioned will complete the works indicated last year.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
Furniture and all?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
Yes; furniture and all. I think, altogether, the result has been most satisfactory. It might have been better; but hon. Members will be glad to hear, in regard to the Refreshment Room, that since the bar has been removed the consumption of liquor has been much less than it used to be. Whether that is due to the change of Members effected at the General Election or to the moving of the temptation further from the Lobby I cannot venture to say; but, Sir, the fact remains. I shall do my best for the accommodation of hon. Members, but it must be remembered that a large portion of this building is set apart for private residences. The number of these private residences may be reduced, especially those occupied by officers of the House of Lords. When I was Commissioner of Works previously I made great efforts to obtain possession of the house occupied by the Librarian of the House of Lords, who did not reside there, but I was unable to do so. Anything I can do shall be done, and I hope the House will pass the Vote without further discussion.

THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN (Lambeth, Brixton)
said, he joined in the objections that had been advanced against these alterations. The Front Benches had been attended to, but no one else. The way to look at the matter was this: One right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Bench spent the money, and the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench was responsible for 882 it. To say that the money had been well spent was not true. The appearance of the House had not been beautified, and the convenience of Members had not been considered. The Whips had been considered, of course, but the Conference Room was a standing disgrace to the House, and whoever had been responsible for the work had done nothing but waste money. Then the bar change had been objected to. He could not but think that a great deal of money had been thrown away.

§ Mr. JOHN BURNS
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)
said that the accommodation in the Conference Room was very bad. He did not know what suggestion to make, but he thought they ought to have a Committee to go into the whole question of the accommodation in the House.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said that the extreme haste of some new Members was rather indecent. It did not pay to closure any of the Estimates. He had received no answer from the First Commissioner to the questions he had asked, and unless some change in the arrangements for private Members were made he should raise the question again on the general Estimates.

§ Mr. JOHN BURNS
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put; "but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
I would say, Sir, that for an hon. Member of such very limited experience to persist with his Motion for the Closure, notwithstanding the well-merited snub he has received from the Chairman, is an incident which demands the emphatic condemnation of the Committee. The hon. Member should remember that he is not in the London County Council.

MR. BUENS
And neither is the right hon. Gentleman on Newmarket Heath.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
The hon. Member will have to endeavour to behave himself according to the Rules of the House, and that remark applies also to the hon. Member's friends who join with him in disorderly cries. The Estimate is £3,000 in excess of the sum originally voted, and that excess is of a very alarming character. For my part. Sir, although the expenditure is limited in comparison to other expenditure on behalf of the nation, I look upon it as relatively great, and we should see that we have something in return. Of course, I am aware that the excess and the whole sum was expended under the advice of a Committee of the House—a Committee composed of gentlemen pre-eminently qualified to form an opinion. I think, however, there were many things the Committee might very properly have considered. Taking this building as a whole, there is no great public work that has been executed at a greater cost and with a less satisfactory result, having regard to the object intended to be carried out. The Palace of Westminster affords the most inadequate accommodation for those who assemble within its walls to discharge their legislative functions, and it has always appeared to me to be an instance of peddling penny wisdom, not to say pound folly, these enormous sums which have been expended with a net result so extremely unsatisfactory. Reference has been made to the inadequate accommodation afforded by the new Conference Room. The Conference Room, which should really be called a room for interviews and deputations under the old arrangement, was by no means satisfactory, but I think the room provided for these purposes under the new rearrangement is much worse. The present so-called Conference Room is no Conference Room at all. The accommodation it affords is totally inadequate; it cannot hold a fair-sized deputation, and, to my mind, it is a disgrace to the House of Commons. I do not wish to use any harsh expression towards the Committee which recommended this re-arrangement 884 of the rooms, for I suppose they were in the position of having to make bricks without straw, but I cannot help saying that they have made the original bad arrangement much worse. I impress upon the First Commissioner of Works that in the interest of Ministers themselves, as well as in the interest and convenience of Members generally and also of persons who are not Members of this House, that an adequate Conference Room, where deputations can be satisfactorily received by Ministers, is an absolute necessity. Indeed, the whole question of the accommodation outside this Chamber for Ministers, and for Members with private secretaries, and who wish to have private interviews with constituents or with draftsmen, or with people on private business affairs, should receive the anxious attention of the Government. The First Commissioner of Works, in the course of his remarks, referred to the fact that the private residences of officers of both Houses of Parliament occupied a considerable amount of space that might be made available otherwise. These remarks seem to me to have been misinterpreted by some hon. Members. I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to have specially directed his observations to the officers of the other House. I took his remarks as general, and as suggesting that some re-arrangement of the residential portions of the Palace might be properly considered when the matter is dealt with on the whole, as I hope it will be on an early date. This used to be called—and I always considered it a fiction and a figure of speech—the best club-house in London. To my mind, there is no pothouse in Europe so badly provided. For instance, the accommodation for writing is wretched. I have frequently wandered through the rooms and through the lobbies seeking for a vacant seat at the writing tables, and I have found the greatest difficulty even to get sufficient room to write a couple of lines or address an envelope on my knee. I do not think that is right in the House of Commons. I think that in this building there ought to be every facility afforded to Members to enable them to discharge their duties to the House without being compelled to neglect their own private affairs. I find that amongst the 885 new re-arrangements which have been effected is the allotting of a room to the Whips, so-called, of one section of the Irish Party. We now appear to have embarked on the Continental system of groups rather than of Parties, which I do not at all regret, because the stereotyped two opposing lines of Party-hacks is by no means an ideal condition of affairs in politics, and I am not at all sorry that the group system is about to prevail. The various groups will require accommodation for their Representatives, and as a beginning I suppose a room has been apportioned to one of the sections of the Irish Party. I am told that that room discharges functions not usually assigned to the rooms of Whips. I am told that if this room, on which a portion of the £3,000 now under consideration has been spent, is examined—and as the First Commissioner of Works has the right of entry into every room, I would suggest to him the exercise of his powers in regard to this particular room—if it be examined it will be found to present an appearance more suggestive of the establishment of Messrs. Lincoln and Bennett, one of the great hat emporiums, than a Whips' Room of the House of Commons, and I understand it is devoted to the active interference with the privileges of Members of this House. I am told that these hats have not been collected for the purposes of sale. I believe there is no barter or commerce connected with the transaction, but I understand that on a given signal, on certain occasions, one of the persons having entrée into this room selects a number of these hats, walks into this Chamber, and distributes the hats on the Benches below the Gangway, thus involving a breach of the Standing Orders regulating the obtaining of seats. That is a matter which I commend to the consideration of the First Commissioner of Works as a matter affecting the privileges of Members of this House. This room, for which we are asked to pay for in this Vote, is now used for the contravention of the long-established principles of courtesy upon which the relations of Members stand in this House. It has always been considered that Members of long-standing, or of many years' service in this House, should be allowed to occupy certain seats, or corresponding seats, at the other side of the House, as 886 Parties changed places. Of course this position—as the Speaker said early in the Session—rests not so much on Standing Orders or Rules, as on the general good sense and good feeling of Members; but when we find an Estimate submitted to us by the Government for an expenditure of £3,000, a portion of which has been spent on a room which has been used for the purpose of furthering the contravention of the long-established usages and courtesies of the House of Commons, I think it is time that the matter should be discussed. What does this departure from the usual courtesy of Members come to? It comes to this: that Members who have occupied seats for over half a century have been deprived of these seats. Take my own case. I am sorry to say I have been a Member of this House, on and off, for 27 years. It is close on a quarter of a century since I first represented a Public Department—

§ MR. CREMER
; I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the question the right hon. Gentleman is discussing is pertinent to the Vote under consideration?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I must say I think the right hon. Gentleman is wandering from the subject. The Supplementary Vote is all we have to consider.

MR.JAMESLOWTHER
Of course, Sir, you are quite right, and I bow to your ruling. If I had gone into this question as a question of courtesy between Members, I would undoubtedly, to some extent, have gone rather near the mark in regard to the Vote; but I was careful to point out the actual fact of the allocation of this room, and in that I was distinctly in Order, as the hon. Gentleman opposite who interrupted, and who has had only a few years' experience in the House, will get to know.

§ MR. LITTLE (Whitehaven)
I rise to Order. I wish to know, Sir, is the right hon. Gentleman observing the ruling of the Chair in debating this question on this Vote?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I have already pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that I think he is wandering from the 887 Vote. I do not say that his references to this particular room are out of Order, but I do think that his references to the use the room may or may not have been put to is apart from the Supplementary Vote.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
Of course, I shall not labour that side of the question. I desire always to support the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me can scarcely have read the Report of the Committee, or the evidence given before the Committee, or else he would see that the room which has been allocated to the uses of the Whips of the Irish Party comes under this Vote. I must protest against this attempt to muzzle the House of Commons. I can tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that we do not intend to be muzzled, and I, for one, do not intend to take my instructions as to the laws of Parliament from those who have little or no experience of Parliamentary life. As to this Vote, there is a widespread feeling on the part of Members of all Parties in the House that we must have additional accommodation provided. It is a matter that can no longer be delayed. Here are 670 Members of this House. We demand that the convenience for the discharge of their duties should be provided in a generous spirit.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,) Oldham
I can assure the House, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that I do not desire to muzzle any hon. Member, but I wish to make an appeal to the Committee that we have now discussed this Vote for two and a half hours, and we ought to proceed to a Division. Most of the speeches we have heard have been delivered by private Members, who have asserted very strongly their grievances with respect to the accommodation afforded by this House. I can say that I very much sympathise with the grievances which have been expressed by these private Members. We have heard the cry of private Members for better accommodation, and I trust the time is not far distant when this question will be considered, so as to provide better accom- 888 modation not only for Ministers and for occupants of the Front Opposition Bench, but for all Members of this House. Much has been said about the re-arrangement of the accommodation provided for by this Vote, and fault has been found with the way these rooms have been allocated. But I wish to point out that my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works merely carried out the arrangement which had been provided for by his predecessor in office on the suggestions of the Committee, and I am sure he will be quite willing to consider, especially with respect to conferences, whether a better room could not be provided for the purpose. It is very desirable in all our interests that, when we have conferences with persons coming on business, we should have a proper and satisfactory room for the meeting, and I hope before long we shall be able to have that room. Great fault has been found with my right hon. Friend for his references to the House of Lords. I do not think these references were at all intended in the sense imputed. What my right hon. Friend said was that there was a room or rooms for the Librarian of the House of Lords which were not used by that officer. I do not see there was any harm in drawing attention to the fact that these rooms were unoccupied, and that they ought to be made use of for the accommodation of Members of this House. We all desire the same thing whether in Office or out of Office, and that is to make the House as comfortable as possible for every Member attending it. I trust, therefore, that as this question has been discussed long enough we may be able to take a vote on the Amendment before the House and proceed to Business.

MR. WEBSTER
said, the right hon. Gentleman had given a pledge that the Government would consider carefully the accommodation of what were called private Members, but whom he described as Members of this House. At the same time, they considered that this £3,000 had not been spent in the way they thought it ought to have been spent—for the benefit of the Members of the House; and as they were determined to carefully consider the Estimates, and not to allow money to be wasted—as he was grieved 889 to say it was wasted by other Public Bodies in this Metropolis—they would, as a protest, go to a Division.

§ MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
said, he wished, first, to say that it was not through want of courtesy or any desire to be disrespectful to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. James Lowther) that he just now rose on a point of Order; and he had not the slightest desire to attempt to muzzle the right hon. Gentleman, because if there was any one man in the House whom he would not like to attempt to muzzle it was the right hon. Gentleman. The question under consideration was not what experience one had had, whether a Member had been here for three or 13 Parliaments; it was a question of common sense. First of all, he wanted to call attention to the composition of the Special Committee, to which some allusions had been made. The question of the composition of the Committee seemed to him an exceedingly important one. It was proposed, if he remembered aright, by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman in Office, and therefore he was responsible for its composition and Report. Let anybody take the list of that Committee and read it.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I think I must call the hon. Member's attention to this: that the composition of the Committee is not in question. The only question for the consideration of the Committee is the expenditure of this £3,000.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)
On the point of Order, Sir, I submit to you whether, as this money is being voted upon the recommendation of the Committee, the hon. Member's remarks are not in Order?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The composition of the Committee was the act of the House. The question here is the action to be taken on the Report of that Committee.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
I think what he ought to do is to confine himself to showing—[interruption.] On the point of Order, I take it I am right in saying that while it is not in Order to go into the 890 original appointment of the Committee, the hon. Gentleman is distinctly in Order in discussing the Report.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Two hours ago I laid down that point of Order, and the only reason I rose to interrupt the hon. Gentleman is this: he seemed to be going a little too far, and into the composition of the Committee.

§ MR. CREMER,
resuming, said he would content himself with saying that as the Committee was constituted no other result was possible, as there was not a practical man upon it. As long as the House contented itself with appointing mere theorists upon Committees, they could not expect any other result. There were practical men in the House acquainted with buildings from foundation to roof, but not one of them was invited to sit upon the Committee. With regard to the results which had followed, he had not yet found a Member of the House who approved of them. The Conference Room was simply a disgrace. It was inconvenient enough before, but it was much more inconvenient now, after the money had been spent upon it. The Bill Office was placed in a part of the building where it was nearly impossible to find it. But the real cause of all the difficulties in this matter was the fact that upwards of a third of this enormous building was occupied by permanent officials; and before anything satisfactory could be done for the convenience of hon. Members some of those officials would have to be dispossessed, and the rooms they now occupied placed at the service of Members. Two years ago it was stated in this House that the Librarian of the House of Lords, although a bachelor, had no less than eight bedrooms at his disposal, while hon. Members could scarcely get a corner of space to discuss matters with their friends. He did not know whether he would be in Order, but there was another question upon which he felt strongly. He was afraid the Chairman would rule him out of Order, and if he did he would sit down immediately. That question was the accommodation, or the want of accommodation, that was afforded Members of the House in the Dining Room of the building.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member will not be in Order in referring to that matter.

§ MR. A. F. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)
rose to speak, and was met by cries of "Divide!"

§ Mr. JOHN BURNS
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I was unable to accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Battersea to the same effect upon the first and second occasions, because I thought this was a matter in which many Members took an interest, and that it would not be proper to close the discussion. I think now that it will be unnecessary to accept the Motion of the hon. Member, because I think the Committee is ready to come to a decision upon it.

§ MR. JEFFREYS
I only wanted to ask if I should be in Order on this Vote in alluding to the lighting of the Library and the Reading Room?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member would not be in Order.

§ MR. F. G. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)
said, he would like to say a few words with regard to the expenditure of this money. When he came into this House in August last there was a bar in the Lobby, and since then it had been moved. He did not know whether there had been any increase of convenience to Members by the moving of the bar, or whether there had been a saving of expenditure to the nation. He presumed that some hon. Gentlemen opposite who were in favour of teetotalism had benefited by the removal of the bar. [Cries of" Divide!"] He moved to report Progress.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I decline to put that Question.

§ MR. BANBURY
said, he simply wanted to ask whether it was worth while at considerable expense to move the bar from the position which it occupied last August to the position which it now occupied?

§ MR. T. R. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.)
On a point of Order, Sir, I desire to ask whether it is competent 892 for an hon. Member to deliver a second speech on the same subject?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
In Committee an hon. Member may speak twice.

§ MR. BANBURY,
continuing, wished to point out that the majority of the House were not in any way benefited by the removal of the bar.

§ Sir JOHN HIBBERT
claimed "That the Original Question be now put."

§ MR. BARTLEY
On the point of Order, Sir—

§ MR. BROMLEY - DAVENPORT (Cheshire, Macclesfield)
Mr. Mellor, Sir, I would like to explain I rose to a point of Order. As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman opposite moved "That the Question be now put," and I wished to ask whether he was in Order in making that Motion?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I could not then allow the hon. Member to say anything. What the right hon. Gentleman said was that he claimed that the Original Question should be now put, which is the proper form.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
regretted that he could not support this Vote, which he considered to be a more important matter than the original Vote. Before the year 1890 the Consular Buildings in Cairo were rented at £400 a year. About four years ago, instead of paying a rent of £400, they thought it 893 better to have a building of their own. The estimated cost of the land was £3,000, and the estimate for the building to be erected was about £20,000. After that they had an Estimate for £30,000, which was to include the land, the erection of the building, and the furniture; but this year the Estimate had been increased from £30,000 to £39,000, and he supposed they would have to get a third Estimate. In 1891 they voted £9,000; in 1892 £17,519; and in 1893 they voted £7,519, making, in all, with the present Estimate, about £40,000. Already they had spent over £30,000, and this new Vote was not £5,500, because if they looked at the bottom they would see there was £8,000 more; and if they estimated that at 4 per cent. they would find that the cost was not £400 a year, as formerly, but £1,600 a year, and it would be very likely £2,000 before the thing was finished. They originally got an Estimate that they were going to get a place built for themselves at a cost of about £20,000. Since then the Estimate had been twice revised. They were spending £1,000 beyond that, and still the place was not finished. He thought it was time the House of Commons should prevent this throwing away of money. It was time when they had an Estimate that should be an honest one, and a good reason should be given why an Estimate should increase from 50 to 100 per cent. He did not know why this extravagant policy should be pursued, unless they were going to annex the country. He should like to hear some reason why all this money had been spent already, and how much more they wanted before they finished these Consular offices. A few years ago they got on very well with a cost of only £400 a year for these offices.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
The original Estimate for providing the site, building, &c., of Consular building at Cairo, was £30,000, and it is now certain the cost will be about £39,000, of which £38,000 is provided for in the original Estimates and the Supplementary, leaving about £1,000 for next year. I venture to say, however, that will complete the entire work. This excess of £8,000 or £9,000 is due to a variety of 894 causes, some of which were not anticipated at the time the original Estimate was before the House, and another part is in respect of further demands made by Lord Cromer and assented to by the late Government. Difficulties that have arisen since, and which were not expected at the time, were of this character: First, the Local Authority at Cairo raised the levels of the road near the new residence, and that necessitated larger and more costly works in the erection of the building. Secondly, it became necessary to embank the Nile in front of the building. Then, again, Lord Cromer made further demands for increased accommodation, which were agreed to by the late Government. There is a further addition to the cost of the building, the exact cause of which I am unable to tell the Committee, because the Clerk of the Works, who was to have reported on this point, has been unable to do so through illness; all we know is that this increased cost will be incurred and the money provided for it in this financial year. We do know that the cost will amount in the whole to £39,000 instead of the original £30,000, and that this £8,000 or £9,000 excess is due to the causes I have stated. It appears that in erecting the house it was found impossible to make a contract for the whole building. The building has been erected under an arrangement of schedule prices, under which, from time to time, there is somewhat of an uncertainty as to the cost; but I am able to assure the Committee that the total cost will not be more than £39,000, and I believe that £1,000 is all that will be required in the Estimates for next year.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
desired to support his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) as to the cost of these buildings; but before making a few remarks on that matter, he wished to call attention to another item in the Vote, and that was the appropriation in aid. The hon. Member for Caithness had said the real Vote was £8,000 and not £5,500, but, in the first place, he found it was made up with £600 taken from other sources. Then £500 was deducted for appropriations in aid; therefore, dealing with that question alone, 895 they were not asked to vote the actual sum, even with regard to the other £2,000, but to vote a less sum because some other sum was brought into the account and deducted, which had nothing to do with the matter, and that put forth to the public that they were spending less money than they were spending. Last Session the right hon. Gentleman who was now the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), and another right hon. Gentleman, now the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler), protested against the then Government putting the Estimates before them in that way, because they said it was an improper and untruthful way of putting the Estimates before the Committee and the country. He did not wish to be too hard upon the new Government with regard to these Supplementary Estimates, but he wished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was going to stick to his guns and present the Estimates to them not in the form they were presented to-day, but in the way he suggested they should be put last Session—["Question!"] The hon. Member said "Question," but he was dealing with the £500 which was in the account now before them. He was raising the question on this Vote in order to give them fair notice that when they had the regular Estimates he should expect them to be made out in the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the late Government ought to have made them out. Now, he wished to make a few remarks about the cost of this Consular Building. The country was told some years back that the building, site, furniture, and everything would only cost £30,000; but now they were told it would cost £39,000; and probably there would be a few more thousands added to that; therefore, he should not be wrong if he said the cost would be over £40,000 before they had done with it, because the right hon. Gentleman had not told them whether the £39,000 would cover the furniture.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
It will.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
was glad to hear that; but he might take it at present that it would cost £40,000, and this was the third increase upon the Estimate. 896 This was a charge, of course, against the late Government more than the present Government, but they ought to have better Estimates than that; the Estimates ought not to be exceeded by 30 per cent. It was unfair to come to the House of Commons and the Committee and say they would build this residence and furnish it complete for £30,000, and afterwards be told they wanted £39,000. When they voted £30,000 they considered that should be all the money required. The right hon. Gentleman told them part of the excess had occurred through having to make some new road levels, and that another extra was in consequence of having to embank the Nile. He ventured to say that unless some old woman made the estimate and not a professional man, both these questions—the embanking of the Nile and making up the roads—ought to have been thought of when they made the Estimate, and it was no excuse at all that the persons they employed were so ignorant of the ordinary professional duties of architect or surveyor that they never estimated the embankment or the making up of the road. He said, therefore, that was no sufficient excuse. He knew it was no use carrying this very far now, because the money was probably expended, but he wished to bring about a better state of things in the future. There was another objection he had to this Vote, and that was this: It said the real cost was £8,000, "less savings on other sub-heads £1,000." He entirely objected to this, whatever Government was responsible for it. They were told by the late Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney) that it was wrong to take the money voted for one matter and use it for another; therefore, he objected to the taking of this £1,000, which was voted for other matters altogether and under other sub-heads. He objected to their taking this money without getting the consent of this Committee. He was told that in the case of the Army and Navy Votes money voted for one purpose might, with the consent of the Treasury, be devoted to another, but with regard to the ordinary Estimates the Government had no right to spend money voted on one sub-head for an entirely different purpose. He would, therefore, ask the Government 897 in future to put these Votes fairly and squarely before the Committee—let the Vote be £8,000, and let the savings under other heads be returned to the Treasury as they ought to be, if not expended for the purposes for which they were voted. He understood they had got an assurance that this building would not cost more than £39,000, but they would carefully watch the matter. But he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how it was the officials did not understand their duties better than to forget the embankment of the river and the making of the roads when they gave the Estimate? He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give him some assurance as to using these appropriations in aid, otherwise he might have to discuss it upon every Vote. He saw it occurred in almost every case, and in some cases to very large amounts indeed, to over £100,000; therefore, he should like an assurance with regard to the matter.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
My hon. Friend will find when the Estimates are presented there are no new appropriations in aid this year.

§ DR. CLARK
said, he had been to the Library and now had the Estimates for last year. On page 28 of those he found that the revised Estimate then was for £30,000. There was a further sum of over £3,000, so that £33,000 had been spent at that time. £9,000 were spent in 1891, £17,000 in 1892, and £7,000 last year, which made £33,000, and in addition there was £8,000, making £41,000 spent already. If they took the three years during which they had been voting this money they would see an expenditure—the first year of £9,000; the second of £17,000; the third of £7,000. How long was this to continue, and what did it mean? If they examined the figures they would see that they were always 50 per cent. above what they were estimated originally. It might be said the French had a better Consulate than they had, but when they had a statement of policy they might then understand that. He was not going to attack any policy upon this point; he would leave that until the Speaker was leaving the Chair on the general question of Supply, and perhaps then the Government would tell them what their policy was. The financial aspect of the question was now before 898 them, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible for it. The real responsibility rested with the right hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket). For his part, he would vote against the Vote. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last year objected to appropriations in aid. Would he now stand to his guns?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
Referring to the excess over the original Estimate, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that that was due to circumstances over which we have had no control. The Supplementary Estimate makes up £39,000; and although we may go to £40,000, my belief is that we shall not exceed the £39,000. I will take care, at all events, that the expenditure is as low as possible. On the whole, I do not think we shall exceed the £39,000.

§ SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)
I think, Sir, I can say that if the right hon. Gentleman voted or spoke last year against appropriations in aid, the Member for Peterborough may be assured that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not stand to his guns. The right hon. Gentleman did not stand to his guns last Session. Although he and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board upon a particular night last Session made a furious attack upon the appropriations in aid, and afterwards put a notice upon the Paper with regard to the matter, yet they never brought that Motion on, because they found upon further inquiry that the appropriations in aid were introduced into the Estimates in consequence of a long practice which was sanctioned by the Committee of Public Accounts. They also found that one of the largest appropriations in aid was introduced into the Estimates in consequence of the suggestion of the Secretary to the Admiralty, at that time Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. When the Estimates were produced for the present year, I said that in every single Vote in which appropriations in aid were usual in the past year it would be found that appropriations in aid were asked for this year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer nodded his head, and therefore I must be 899 right. I can tell the Member for Peterborough that if he intends to stand to his guns and says he adopts this view about the appropriations in aid, he will have a very heavy task before him.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, he did not know anything about the Chancellor of the Exchequer nodding his head in assent to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, but he hoped they were not going to have appropriations in aid this year.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I merely said there should be no new appropriations in aid.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, he did not quite understand that at present. He knew, however, that last year the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of keeping all appropriations in aid out of the Estimates, and he approved of the humour he was then in. To deduct appropriations in aid was neither an honest nor a straightforward course. They had no right to tell the House that they wanted £5,500, when in reality they wanted £8,000. He distinctly said that he would stick to his guns upon this question. He was sure it was not an honest or a straightforward way of putting accounts before them. He had not heard any reply to his remarks about the economy that might be effected. It was impossible for hon. Members to find out the items they wished to discuss. The only way for them to detect the defects or the flaws in the figures was to make a careful study of the Appropriation Account and the Report of the Auditor General. It was only in this way they could find it out at all, if there was anything wrong. The Radicals were supporting this Government, and he hoped they would have the courage to inquire into these matters. He asked for some little explanation about the money voted for one purpose and then applied to another.

§ MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said, before the Vote was submitted to the judgment of the House he would like to ask who and what this Agent in Egypt was? Was he to be there for a temporary purpose, or was he 900 to be withdrawn on the day they of England evacuated Egypt? If he was to be a temporary Agent the case would be met by furnished lodgings. If the Government had a case for a permanent agency they would be able to justify the spending such a large amount as this; but not if they should, on the other hand, early redeem their promises with regard to the evacuation of Egypt. They were giving the Vote under a wrong impression if this residence was to be used, and if public work were to be done for the benefit of the Egyptians alone, such as the embankment which had been spoken of. Was this embankment a temporary one? This was a very important Vote. It raised the whole question of the continuance of the temporary occupation of Egypt

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The only question before us is the question of the Supplementary Grant.

§ MR. BOWLES
But surely the whole thing turns upon the character of the Agent, and whether he is entitled to have this residence?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The question is this: Whether the Committee is prepared to grant the excess sum asked for by the Government. The original purpose was sanctioned by Parliament at the time, and all that is asked now is a sum which was not voted before. The question is: Is this sum excessive or not under the circumstances?

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)
I rise to a point of Order. I beg to ask you, Sir, whether I have correctly understood your ruling? You have, as I understand, stated that by the original Vote the House sanctioned the principle of the Vote, and that now we have only to discuss whether the excess is reasonable or not. What I wish to ask is this: Have we not also the right to discuss the principle of the Vote upon this demand upon us for an additional sum?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I cannot think that upon a Supplemental Vote—[Interruption]—any principle of general policy can be involved. The House of Commons sanctioned the building of a residence. The Supplemental Estimate asks for an additional sum. It is not com- 901 petent for an hon. Member to go into a question of general policy upon this Supplemental Vote.

§ MR. BOWLES
regretted that his limits of action were so circumscribed.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I rise upon a point of Order. The ruling which I understand you, Sir, to have given is of such importance that I should like fully to appreciate it. Do I understand you to rule that upon a Supplementary Estimate the policy involved in the original Estimate is not open to be discussed? That is a novel principle, and we ought clearly to understand it.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I would ask you, Sir, to lay down a principle for our instruction upon these Estimates, and I would put this case:—Supposing a Supplementary Vote is put down, say, for £200 for the drains of the Foreign Office, would it be a proper occasion to raise the question of the whole foreign policy of the Government?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Upon a Supplementary Estimate such as this the question of policy is not involved, and cannot be discussed.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
The question which we desire your opinion upon is, not whether the whole foreign policy can be raised, but whether, upon a Supplementary Estimate, it has not always been held to be perfectly in Order to discuss the original Estimate?

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
Hear, hear!

§ SIR J. GORST
I rise to ask a question upon a point of Order. Is it not the usual practice of the Chair of this House to rule only on concrete cases, and not upon general principles?

§ MR. SEXTON
I rise to a point of Order. In view of the combined attack that is being made to embarrass and intimidate the Chair—[Cries of "Order, order!" and "Withdraw!"]

§ SIR J. GORST
I rise to a point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"]

§ Mr. SEXTON
did not resume his seat.

§ Mr. T. W. RUSSELL
rose—

§ SIR J. GORST
I rise to a point of Order.

§ MR. SEXTON
I am in possession of the House.

§ SIR J. GORST
(still standing): I rise to a point of Order.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge rose to a point of Order, which he conceived arose out of the speech of the hon. Gentleman.

§ SIR J. GORST
I wish to ask whether it was in Order for an hon. Member to attribute to other hon. Members of this House combined action to intimidate the Chair?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I did not hear the hon. Member distinctly, but I under stood the hon. Member to point out to the House that there was a general disposition to rise to Order upon this particular question, and I understood the hon. Member was about to address himself to that question.

§ Mr. SEXTON
rose again.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Mr. Sexton. [Cries of "Withdraw!"]

§ Mr. SEXTON
again attempted to speak, but was met with cries of "Withdraw!"

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I hope the Committee will allow the hon. Member to proceed.

MR. WEBSTER
I rise to a point of Order. Is it in Order, Sir, for an hon. Gentleman——[Cries of "Sit down!" and "Name!"]

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Mr. Sexton.

MR. WEBSTER
Mr. Mellor, I rise to Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNE
I rise to a point of Order. [Cries of "Name!"] Is it in Order for—[Interruption.] I beg to call attention to the fact—

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The Member for Belfast—[Cries of "Kerry!"] The hon. Member for Kerry is in possession of the House.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNE
I must ask—[Cries of "Order!"]

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order! I say the hon. Member for Kerry is in posses- 903 sion of the House, and it is only fair he should be heard. [Cries of "Why did he insult us?"]

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
He has insulted us. Withdraw!

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to insult any one.

§ MR. SEXTON
I am entitled to hold the opinion I have expressed. ["Withdraw!"]

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! The hon. Member is in possession of the House. He originally rose to Order, and has not completed what he was about to say.

MR. WEBSTER
He has insulted the Conservative Party.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I think it only fair, before any comments or remarks are made upon what he said, the hon. Member should be heard.

§ SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT (Sheffield, Eccleshall)
He repeated the insult to the whole Conservative Party.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Nobody understood what he intended to say.

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
He repeated it. He has no right to insult the House.

§ MR. HULSE (Salisbury)
I rise to a point of Order.

§ Mr. SEXTON
also rose.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must understand there is only one point of Order. It is impossible to think the Committee can appreciate the importance of this point of Order until it has heard what the hon. Member in possession of the House has to say. I call upon the hon. Member for Kerry.

§ MR. SEXTON
[Cries of "Withdraw!"]: I can tell the hon. Member for North Armagh that I did not withdraw what I said about him once before.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
Is that a point of Order?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member for Kerry will be good enough to confine himself to the point of Order.

§ MR. SEXTON
I am not allowed to proceed, Mr. Chairman.

§ MR. HULSE
I rise to a point of Order. [Cries of "Name, name!"]

§ THE CHAIRMAN
There can be only one point of Order. The hon. Member for Kerry rose to a point of Order, and it is only right that the hon. Member should be heard.

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
The hon. Member has no right to insult us.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I have to repeat—and I am quite sure the whole Committee will see the importance of it—that if an hon. Member rises to a point of Order he ought to be heard. The hon. Member for Kerry is in possession of the House, and I hope the House will hear what he has to say.

§ MR. SEXTON
I beg to ask you, as a question of Order, the point having been raised before you, whether upon a Supplementary Estimate for the erection of a building, and the Main Vote having already been determined by the House, and you having more than once given a clear and specific ruling, you will permit your ruling to be made the subject of further discussion?

§ MR. WYNDHAM
said on this point of Order he wanted to ask if, in the interval between the decision of the last House and the House now sitting there had been a change of Government which had placed a right hon. Gentleman in Office whose views upon this question were in doubt, so that many hon. Members were not sure that their policy in Egypt was the policy which was pursued by the House which sanctioned the original Vote—if then this Supplementary Estimate was in true continuation of the Vote to which the House of Commons had given its assent?

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I would venture to appeal to the House, after what has taken place in the last quarter of an hour, that what has taken place has not been to the advantage of Public Business. I understand that the Chairman of Committees has made a ruling. Whether hon. Gentlemen agree or not, I would venture to submit that when the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees makes a ruling upon a point, it is to the advantage and credit of this House that the ruling should be accepted, and that we should 905 not proceed on one side or the other to debate the ruling of the Chair.

§ SIR H. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)
I am sure we shall all be disposed to agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that hon. Members should abide by the ruling of the Chair; but I think, Sir, your ruling is of such very serious importance that you would yourself wish we should not hastily pass away from it as a matter of principle. I should like very respectfully to ask whether I have a right to point out on a Supplemental Estimate of, say, £20,000 to an original Vote of £5,000, that the £20,000 ought not to be granted because the original Vote of £5,000 has not been properly expended? If you rule that the first Vote of the sum of £5,000 governs us, however great the Supplementary Vote may be, we must hold our tongues. What you have laid down now is so important to the privilege of Parliament that if it is persisted in no Supplemental Estimate can ever be brought forward again. With all respect to your ruling, I think, Sir, that you yourself must wish this matter should be determined. I would therefore suggest that the proper course would be to report Progress—I do not propose to move to report Progress myself—and ask the Speaker to rule whether we are to be deprived of the constitutional right on a Supplemental Estimate of showing that the original Estimate should not be added to.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
I did not understand your ruling to go the extent my right hon. Friend declares. I understood it to be, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts it, that in a particular Supplementary Estimate for a Foreign Office building it is not possible to discuss the whole foreign policy of the country. I did not understand you to preclude our raising on a Supplemental Estimate the question of the policy of the original Vote.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
What I meant to rule, and what I think I did rule, was that it was not competent for any hon. Member of the Committee on the Supplemental Estimates like this to raise questions of policy. In addition to that, I pointed out that the Vote for purchase of this Agency house had been sanctioned by 906 Parliament, and that, therefore, the policy of sanctioning or providing an Agency house could not be questioned. But I certainly never ruled, and never meant to rule, that it was not perfectly competent to the Committee to say that no more money should be spent because the previous money had not been properly spent.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
As I understand it, Sir, you have ruled that the policy of the original Vote cannot be discussed on the Supplemental Estimate. That, I venture to say, is a new ruling. ["Order!"] I do not say it is wrong, but it is new.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
It has been ruled again and again.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Never. It has never been ruled that the policy involved in the original Vote cannot be re-discussed on the Supplemental Vote.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Yes; over and over again.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Never. I should hope, Sir, that that does not represent the ruling you would wish to put before us. Before further proceedings are taken on that point, I suppose I am now in Order in asking you to call upon the hon. Member for Kerry to withdraw the statement he made when, under cover of rising to a point of Order, he accused hon. Gentlemen in this House of a combined attempt to intimidate the Chair. You, Sir, ruled, and I have no doubt ruled correctly, that there could only be one point of Order before the House at one time; but now that the hon. Member for Kerry has furnished what he described as his statement, I hope you will order him to withdraw an imputation which certainly, I think, was unparliamentary and should not have been made in reference to any Members in this House.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Two appeals are made to me, and I will deal with them in their order. I did not understand the hon. Member for Kerry to impute—perhaps I did not hear what he said—to hon. Members what would have been something in the nature of a conspiracy—[Several hon. MEMBERS: "He used those words"]—a conspiracy to intimidate the Chair. I need hardly say that if I had so understood him I should have 907 called upon the hon. Member for Kerry to explain or withdraw what he had said. Several hon. Members rose to Order, and I was anxious to hear what the hon. Member had to say. With regard to the other point, I want to make myself perfectly plain upon the question of a Supplemental Vote. I understand the rule which has been laid down on several occasions to be that you cannot, on a Supplemental Vote, which is a mere addition, go into questions of policy; and I also understand that where a Vote has been sanctioned by Parliament to this extent, we will say that Parliament has desired that a Resident's house should be provided in Cairo, the propriety of providing the house is not to be questioned on a Supplemental Vote. But I never meant to suggest that Members of the Committee could not contend that the house was worthless or that more money had been spent upon it than ought to have been spent, or that more money should not be granted in respect of it on the Supplementary Vote.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
From that explanation it results very clearly.

MR. T. M. HEALY
I rise to Order. [Cries of "Order!"]

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
declined to give way, and both Members remained standing for some time amidst loud cries of "Order!"

§ THE CHAIRMAN
called upon Mr. Chamberlain.

MR. T. M. HEALY
I rise to Order. [Loud cries of "Order!" and interruption.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
still refused to give way, and Mr. HEALY remained standing and repeating "I rise to a point of Order."

§ THE CHAIRMAN
As I understand, there is no point of Order now before the Committee. Mr. Chamberlain!

MR. T. M. HEALY
I propose to raise a new point of Order. I wish to ask—[Loud cries of "Order!" and interruption.]

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham rose upon the matter before the Committee, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be heard.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
It results clearly from your ruling, Sir, that no Member of this Committee on a Supplementary Vote for a particular Service would be entitled to call in question the whole policy of the Department. I do not think, Sir, there is the slightest difference of opinion in reference to your ruling upon that matter. But there is a second point on which I am bound to say that I do not understand you. When a Supplemental Vote is taken on a particular Service some of us have understood that it would always be competent for us upon the Supplemental Vote to raise the question of the policy of the original Vote, not, of course, the whole policy of the Department. I quite understand it would be impossible for us on a Supplemental Vote for the Diplomatic and Consular Service, for instance, to raise the whole question of the foreign policy of the Government of this country; but upon the Vote before the Committee at present for the provision of Agency buildings in Cairo, some of us have hitherto understood that it would be possible to raise the question of the original policy of that Vote. I may point out how the matter may arise. It might be that circumstances had changed entirely between the time when the Vote was sanctioned and the time when the Supplementary Vote is demanded. Or, again, it might happen that the Parliament had changed, and that the Parliament which sanctioned the original Vote was altogether a different Parliament from the Parliament called on to sanction the Supplemental Vote. Under the circumstances, it seems to me unlikely that you intended to rule that the new Parliament should not be permitted to revise the position of the old Parliament. Now, it so happens in the present case that the policy of erecting Consular buildings in Cairo was decided by the last Parliament, and the present Parliament may take a totally different view of that policy; and it appears to me that, according to all previous rulings, they would be entitled to discuss that policy as well as the extremely small question of whether the policy being granted, the proceedings under the the contract were such as would command their approbation. I have endeavoured 909 to put the case clearly before you in order that you may, if you see fit, give any further explanation to show clearly whether it is or is not your intention to rule that, whether or not the Parliament is the same, it would be impossible for any Parliament to discuss the policy Upon which the original Vote has been Sanctioned by a previous Parliament.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Mr. Mellor, I Would ask you what is the question now before the House? For three-quarters of an hour we have been doing a thing which in my Parliamentary recollection I cannot recall. We have been debating with great heat the ruling of the Chair. I venture to submit to the House most respectfully that if such a practice as that is to obtain the House of Commons can do no Business whatever. If the House of Commons is not prepared to accept the ruling of the Chair without a protracted and heated Debate, the whole order of the proceedings of the House of Commons is at an end; and I do implore hon. Gentlemen on both sides not to encourage the continuance of such a Debate as this, but to accept the ruling of the Chair and proceed to discuss the Vote that is before them.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I am sure the whole House will agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the scenes like those of the last quarter of an hour are to be deprecated, and that every respect should be shown, and I am sure will be shown, to the ruling of the Chair. But I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that what we have been engaged upon is disputing the ruling of the Chair. That certainly is not what has occurred in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Debating the ruling of the Chair.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
We are anxious primarily to discover precisely what that ruling is. It is evident that a question of the gravest import is now 910 before us—the liberty of this House to discuss upon Estimates the policy involved in those Estimates. That is one of the dearest of our privileges. Unquestionably, that privilege ought not to be stretched, so neither ought it to be curtained. We are only anxious to know whether you, representing after all the traditions of this House in the matter of our liberties in Committee of Supply, are giving a ruling which those of us who have had experience of this House for many years are inclined to think will greatly curtail the liberties we have been in the habit of enjoying. I should like, if I may, to repeat the precise question on the point of Order put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. No claim, as I understand it, has been raised for discussing the general policy of a Department upon a Supplementary Estimate in connection with the particular expenditure in that Department. All we ask, I will not say claim—all we venture respectfully to put before you—is this: that, according to the immemorial practice of this House, it has been permitted to its Members on a Supplementary Estimate to discuss the policy of the original Estimate to which that Estimate is supplementary. I would ask you, by way of illustration, whether, if the last Parliament had voted £5,000, we will say for the construction of a railway to Uganda, and this Government were to propose an expenditure of £200,000 for the same purpose, we should be precluded on the Supplementary Estimate from discussing the policy of such an expenditure. We may be mistaken, and I hope and believe we are mistaken, in thinking that the ruling you have given from the Chair would make that extraordinary curtailment of our immemorial privileges; but, at all events, whether we are right or whether we are wrong, we do think it necessary that a perfectly clear decision should be given by you on this important question.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I think it would be advantageous that I should remind the Committee of what took place at the time I interposed, for it seems that that has been entirely lost sight of in the discussion that has taken place. Unquestionably, the matter is one of importance. I do not deny that it is; 911 but at the time when I interposed I distinctly understood that the hon. Member who was then speaking was about to open up the whole question of the Egyptian policy. I may have misunderstood him. He was speaking of a temporary occupation of Egypt and of a permanent occupation of Egypt; he was raising in various forms what appeared to me to be the policy of the Government, a matter which is not, and has never been, considered to be open in a Supplementary Estimate. I can only assure the Committee that I am the last person in the world to seek to curtail the privileges of the House of Commons. I am only endeavouring to administer the law as I find it, and, as I am bound to do, rule upon questions arising, to the best of my ability. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has put to me what seems to me to be the exact point; and I think that probably, when he has heard all I have to say, that there will not be very much difference between the view he takes and the view I have endeavoured to explain to the Committee. I am distinctly of opinion that no question of general policy can be raised on these Estimates. I think there can be no doubt about that; and what is more, I venture to submit to the Committee that it is most desirable, in the interests of the entire House and of the country, that the Debates on these Supplementary Estimates should be kept strictly to the point; that is to say, that the time of the House should not be spent on anything approaching a fruitless discussion. But while I endeavoured to distinguish between questions of general policy, I never went so far as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester seems to think. I did not hold that in this Supplemental Vote it could not be argued that the Agency house was worthless. I cannot go so far as to say that merely because there has been a dissolution of Parliament every question of policy can be re-opened on the Estimates. I draw myself a very clear and distinct difference between questions of general policy and the question opened on this Estimate. Having endeavoured to explain myself to the Committee, I sincerely hope that the discussion upon the matter itself may be allowed to proceed.

§ MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES
With your permission, Mr. Mellor, I will now resume the remarks with which I was endeavouring to assist the Committee to come to a prompt decision on the Vote. The Vote is for part of the cost of a house for an Agent, and, if I may be allowed to explain, what I was endeavouring to open up was not the character of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, but the character of the Agent for whom the House is intended, as bearing on the question of whether we are justified in voting such a house for such an Agent. I submit, Sir, that the character of the house depends entirely upon the character of the Agent for whom it is intended. If you have one kind of Agent you would be justified in voting one kind of house; but if you have another kind of Agent, another kind of house would be needed. I submit that that is the sole question—the character of the Agent—that I endeavoured to discuss. If I am not permitted to discuss the house, nor the Agent, nor the Acts which created the Agent, I would ask, "What may I discuss? May I discuss any part of this £6,000? If not, why do I sit here?" [Cries of "Order!"] I ask myself that as a serious question. When I came to this House I was charged by my constituents as one of my first duties to watch over the expenditure of the money of the taxpayers. I find, however, that on the first Vote of the first Estimate I am closured, and that on the first Vote of the second Estimate, when I endeavour, to the best of my ability, to give reasons why this £6,000 should not be voted to build this agency house, I am brought up by points of Order and interruptions which have entirely driven my arguments out of my mind. I wish to disclaim altogether any desire to stop any appropriate expenditure of money. I think I am justified in asking whether, inasmuch as the person for whom this house is required, is a temporary official on a temporary Mission, and not a permanent official on a permanent Mission (the Mission being one that is to be withdrawn in as short a period of time as possible), the expenditure of this large sum is not entirely out of place?

§ SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)
I would submit to my hon. Friend that this Vote should be allowed 913 to pass. The policy of the Vote was fully discussed in the last Parliament, and it was then abundantly shown that the character of Her Majesty's Agent in Egypt was of such importance that he ought to be properly lodged and able to support the dignity of his nation. Whether the military occupation of Egypt be long or short, it never can be the case that the British Agent will not occupy a very important position. The larger question of the occupation of Egypt is not now involved. I venture to think that this Vote ought to be passed. It will by no means destroy the right of hon. Gentlemen to discuss at any future time our policy in Egypt.