§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTPerhaps it would be to the convenience of the House if the First Lord of the Treasury would tell us what will be the business next week. I would also ask whether it is intended to bring forward the Education Bill before Easter or after Easter. I would like to point out that the Vote on Account is proposed to be taken for a most unusual period—a period for which I do not recollect its having been asked for before—and I hope at all events that the First Lord will consider whether, regarding the state of affairs generally, it is not inexpedient to ask for a Vote on Account for a longer period than usual?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYWith regard to the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman, an appeal was made to me, in connection with the new Rules of Procedure in regard to Supply, not to go back to the ancient practice of the House of taking a Vote on account for a period of four months. The reason why the House has in recent years been unwilling to give so long a period for a Vote on account was that, under the old Rule governing procedure, it was competent for the Government, and 1362 it was the habit, not to take Supply during the active months of April, May, June, and July, or at least more than they were positively compelled to take it. Therefore, if the House wished for any control whatever over the machinery of administration, it was necessary to compel the Government to ask for another Vote on account. But under the new Rule that necessity is avoided; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I believe the operation of the new Rule will be to give quite unusual and even absolutely unprecedented facilities for the discussion of any question of public importance, or for any criticism of the administration of the Government which the Opposition desire to bring on.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTThat may be true with reference to Supply generally; but it would not be true with reference to a particular Vote—for instance, the Foreign Office Vote. If we were to part with that for a period of four months, there would be no other opportunity of discussing it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI think I have already given a pledge to pursue a course which surely would be much more for the convenience of the House than the practice of putting down Votes on account. That pledge is that, whenever the Opposition desire it, I will bring forward some Vote on which this question of foreign policy can be discussed. That pledge I am quite willing to repeat, and I would point out that by the House dealing with the Foreign Minister's salary on the Vote on account, that Vote will not be disposed of, and will remain to be passed in the present year, and therefore it can be put down again if hon. Gentlemen desire to criticise the general foreign policy of Her Majesty's Ministers. As to the question about the course of business, I propose to take the Vote on account tomorrow, and I hope that Committee of Supply also will be taken. Therefore, I will put down the Diseases of Animals Bill as the first order on Monday, and the Report of the Vote on account as the second Order of the Day, so that there may be a further discussion of questions interesting to the House if, as I anticipate, the Diseases of Animals Bill does not take any undue portion of the evening. The next stage of the 1363 Naval Works Bill I should also hope to take on Monday. I do not know whether that will be possible; and, if not, it will probably be taken on Thursday. I do not like to give any further pledge with regard to next week's business, until I see how business proceeds at the end of this week; but I certainly intend to afford my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Council an opportunity of introducing the Education Bill before we separate for the Easter holidays. [Cheers.]
§ SIR C. DILKEA promise was given that on the Vote on account the Protectorates Vote should be put down second. Does that mean that the statement with regard to the Protectorates which was promised is to be made in Committee of Supply?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYMy right hon. Friend will be ready when called upon to make that statement; but, according to the rumours which have reached me, I do not think we shall be able to deal with the Protectorates Vote to-morrow. It will be put down, however, on the chance that the Debate on the foreign policy of the Government does not take the whole of the evening.
§ SIR C. DILKEWill the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that this is a matter which is to be Debated in reference to Report on Monday? In previous years, when a Vote on account has been for a shorter period, a full night has been given to the Vote, and a full night to the Report of the Vote.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYThat has occasionally occurred; but I do not think it has been the general practice of the House, and certainly could not be when one night a week is given to Supply. I am anxious to make what progress we can with the financial business before the 31st of March, and if we did not get the Vote on account difficulty would ensue.
§ SIR C. DILKEWill the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he cannot have this statement with regard to the Protectorates made to-morrow or on Report of the Vote on account? Or will he put down the Protectorates Vote first for an early Friday?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI will certainly consider that, especially if I find that the course meets the wishes of a large section of the House.