THIRD READING. (Hansard, 24 March 1893)

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
said he thought that this would be a convenient opportunity for drawing the attention of the House to certain very grave irregularities in relation to the Supplementary Estimates which were contained in the Bill. He referred to the manner in which the Estimates had been prepared. It was most important that attention should be called to such a matter at the earliest possible moment, because precedents were very easily established, however mischievous they might be. They had already had their attention drawn to the fact that there had been irregularities of a grave character in the preparation of 1046 the Estimates, and he now wished briefly to direct the attention of the House to the manner in which many of the Estimates in the Bill had been prepared. The rule under which Supplementary Estimates were prepared was of a strict and binding character. It was laid down in the most solemn manner that no excess over the expenditure provided for in the current year could take place unless included in a Supplementary Estimate, and in this connection he now proposed to draw the attention of the Government, and especially of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Estimates prepared for Temporary Commissions. He was not proposing to re-open that very unsavoury subject, nor did he intend to refer to the highly discreditable proceedings brought under review in connection with the Evicted Tenants Commission. It was to the financial aspect of the question only that he desired to call attention. In that Estimate there appeared an intimation that the excess under a certain head was accounted for by the cost of the Royal Commission on the Metropolitan Water Supply, which had amounted to £3,000, or rather more than the total excess of £2,700. When attention was called to the subject, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that no provision was made in the Supplementary Estimates for the so-called Evicted Tenants Commission.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
No.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
said, the fact had, no doubt, passed out of the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman, who, however, in reply to a question put across the floor of the House, said that there was no provision in the Estimates for the Evicted Tenants Commission. If the right hon. Gentleman would consult the Financial Secretary to the Treasury he would find that it was so. The Financial Secretary would recollect that he made a definite statement in reply to repeated questions that the Evicted Tenants Commission was provided for out of the original Estimate, and that the excess in the Supplementary Estimate was wholly caused by the cost of the Metropolitan Water Commission. If it were otherwise how did this Estimate come to be framed?

§ MR. SEXTON
I rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman, the main part of whose speech is unintelligible to 1047 Members in this part of the House, is now discussing the form of a particular Estimate. I beg to ask whether, on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, it is competent for the right hon. Gentleman to discuss such details as the form of the Estimates?

§ MR. SPEAKER
I think it is a very unusual course to take. If the right hon. Gentleman objects to the form of the Estimates he ought to have called attention to the matter before; but I cannot say that the right hon. Gentleman is technically out of Order in reviewing the form of the Estimates which constitute the subject of the Consolidation Bill.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
said he was sorry his observations had not reached the hon. Member, otherwise he would have found their strict relevancy. He was obeying the Speaker's ruling and did not propose to go into details. He had availed himself of the first opportunity which had presented itself to challenge the manner in which the Estimate was framed. He drew the attention of the Government to the fact that several other Estimates had been framed with an entire disregard, not only of practice, but of law. He was, however, told that he could not raise the question in Committee of Supply unless he adopted the course of moving to report Progress. This was obviously a matter which should be dealt with by the House in its full capacity, and what was more, the various stages of this Bill had been taken at hours which did not admit of the House being made fully aware of the circumstances in which it was placed in respect of the points to which he was referring. How did the Chancellor of the Exchequer account for the conflicting views which prevailed even in his own mind? He had evidently buried in oblivion the reply he gave to a distinct question. It was stated both by him and by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether they recollected it or not, that this Estimate was framed according to regular precedent and to Rule, and the Financial Secretary said that, framed as it was, it did not include any sum for the Evicted Tenants Commission. Upon a future occasion, when an attempt might be made to withdraw some important subject from the cognisance of Parliament, and when the Government might not have a wise adviser 1048 at hand in the person of the Prime Minister, who promptly disavowed the unconstitutional action of his Colleagues, and, therefore, contradicted the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, this proceeding might be quoted as a precedent. In future years they might be told that the Supplementary Estimates for the financial year 1892-93 distinctly established a precedent which had been scrupulously observed. There were other Estimates which were framed with a similar disregard to precedent—he referred to the Post Office and Telegraph Votes, which came under the head of the Revenue Department. He some days previously drew attention to certain items of expenditure and to the promise made by the late Postmaster General on behalf of the late Government. But he was told that there was no provision made in one Vote, and that the discussion should be raised on another, and therefore the discussion was cut into several pieces and proceeded in a somewhat disjointed manner, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had heard him make the same remark more than once. The true answer to that criticism was that he had been compelled to address practically the same question to the Heads of different Departments of the Government. He was compelled to address the same question first to the Postmaster General, and then to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and they said that it was not in their Department. The Postmaster General said, first of all, that he had expended money on the objects in question, and then corrected himself and said he had not. He was not making any charge against the right hon. Gentleman—he, probably in the absence of notice of the question, had not made himself fully acquainted with the facts—but it was the case that there was expenditure of considerable dimensions which was not distinctly covered by any items in the Supplementary Estimates. He felt it his duty to call attention to the matter, because the issue involved was the loss of life at sea. He drew attention to the Report of the Royal Commission to the fact that money had been promised to be expended in that direction, and that no adequate amount had been provided in the Estimates for 1049 the current year. As the Postmaster General stated that the work was being actually done, it ought to be included in the Supplementary Estimates before the House. He did not wish to refer in detail to the question, important as it was, but surely hon. Gentlemen would admit that the unanimous Report of a Royal Commission deserved some attention.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
I rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not now discussing a Vote, but the absence of money which he thinks ought to be in the Vote.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say the money was in the Vote.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
I will make my meaning clear.

§ MR. SPEAKER
If it is not in the Vote, then the right hon. Gentleman would be out of Order in raising the question now.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
said, he apologised to the House for having failed to make his meaning clear. When he raised the matter on the Telegraphs Vote he was told he ought to have raised it on the Post Office Vote. His object in referring to it was to ascertain under what head this expenditure was incurred. The duty of the House of Commons was to keep a jealous guard over the public purse, and he for one intended to discharge that duty, notwithstanding any taunts that might emanate from any quarter of the House. Parliament was bound to insist on the formalities prescribed by law being duly observed by the Government. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the House a distinct explanation as to what was his view and that of his Colleagues with regard to the mode in which the Estimate for the Temporary Commissions was prepared, and whether he considered it was prepared in a strictly regular manner.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) Derby
When I listened to the right hon. Gentleman my mind carried back about a quarter of a century to when I first entered this House, when we were both a good deal younger, and when I found below the Gangway my right hon. Friend practising those arts of Parliamentary procrastination which he has carried to such perfection since. He has disappeared 1050 lately from the scene, but the reappearance of a favourite actor is always acknowledged and welcomed by the public, and our eyes are idly bent upon those behind, who are to follow next. He has become, if possible, a more accomplished proficient in those arts since the year 1868, when, in a state of comparative innocence, I watched his proceedings. Now, Sir, we perfectly understand the meaning of his proceedings upon this occasion—those dissertations upon finance and the Estimates. You have pointed out to him, Sir, what is the effect of the very unusual course of discussions of this kind on the Third Reading of the Ways and Means Bill. There are particular reasons why this year there should be no delay at this stage of the Bill. We have absolutely reached the eleventh, if not the twelfth hour. The House of Lords has suspended all its Standing Orders in order that this Bill may be passed this afternoon, and a telegram may be sent to the Queen at Florence stating that the Bill has received the assent of both Houses of Parliament, so that the law of the land may not be broken. And this is the occasion (pointing to Mr. Lowther)——[Cheers drowned the concluding words of the sentence.] I acquit the other gentlemen who sit on the Front Opposition Bench of complicity in a proceeding which, I venture to say, is not creditable to Parliament. I am not going to assist the right hon. Gentleman in his proceedings. There is not one single point to which he has referred which has not been discussed over and over again. This recrudescence of objections which have no foundation in fact at all, we know very well what it was for. It was for the purpose of doing that which he has accomplished—wasting half an hour of the time of the House of Commons which is intended to be devoted to a subject in which the great mass of the people of this country take a deep interest. For that purpose, and for that purpose alone, have these miserable and unfounded technicalities been raised. It is all of a piece with the endeavour to obstruct the Mutiny Bill last night, and of Motions from the Opposition Benches which you, Sir, refused to put from the Chair, and with the conduct of an hon. Member opposite when you put the Motion.

§ SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)
I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in referring to a Debate which took place last night?

§ MR. SPEAKER
I am not quite certain that the circumstances of the case do not justify the line of remark of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I think the right hon. Gentleman has not gained much by his intervention, or the hon. Gentlemen who sit behind him by the rebuke which they drew down upon themselves last night—a rebuke which I think, in the opinion of the country, will be held to be thoroughly deserved. The right hon. Gentleman asks me if these Estimates have been properly framed. I have never been asked the question before, but my right hon. Friend has on previous occasions dealt very ably and very properly with this point. Still, I am prepared to say now that I take the responsibility of the way in which these Estimates were framed. As to excluding the Evicted Tenants Commission, I was always of opinion that the proceedings of that Commission could properly be discussed under the Estimate, and they have been discussed. That is a sufficient answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman. What his other question was I was unable to understand. He got muddled up upon subjects not upon the Estimates at all, and that helped to waste 10 minutes more, and that, I suppose, was a sufficient justification. We perfectly understand what the meaning of these transactions is, and, for my part, I decline to be any party to them, and if the Party opposite are determined now to adjourn, to delay, and to postpone the Ways and Means Bill, let them do it and let them lake the responsibility.
Mr. Sexton rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

§ MR. SPEAKER
I will put that Question to the House. I am bound to say that such proceedings as have taken place on the Third Reading of the Ways and Means Bill are not in unison with the ordinary Parliamentary procedure.

§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)
On a point of Order, Sir, I wish to ask what is the meaning of the rule you have just laid down? Am I to understand that I had no right to discuss the Army Bill after 12 o'clock last night? The Bill was brought forward under totally exceptional circumstances, and there is no Judge Advocate General responsible to this House to act as soldiers' friend, and to see that proper justice was done to our troops. In addition to that, one-half of the Army Bill this year is entirely new. Therefore I do not want, under these circumstances, to stand under any imputation in the matter.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member was not speaking when I declined to put the Question of the Adjournment of the Debate last night. The hon. Member had exhausted his right of speaking, and another hon. Member rose and moved the Adjournment. What I said was that this Bill, under the Standing Order, could be taken after 12 o'clock. Only 10 minutes past 12 had been reached when a Motion for Adjournment was made, and I thought it was not a proper proceeding to move the Adjournment of the Debate on a question which, under a special Standing Order, was reserved for discussion after 12 o'clock, and I declined to put that Question to the House. That was the sole motive with which I was actuated. The hon. Member seems to question my discretion.

§ MR. HANBURY
No, Sir; I had no such intention.

§ MR. SPEAKER
If the hon. Member does question my discretion, I must say I hope discussions on the Army Bill will be conducted in a manner more in consonance with the ordinary Parliamentary practice than the Debate to-day on the Consolidated Fund Bill.