HC Deb 05 February 1897 vol 45 cc1437-9
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

desired the Speaker's ruling on a point of Order, involving, as he thought, a matter of some importance. On the Order Paper for the day appeared the notice:— Army Estimate, 1896–97 (Suakim Expedition). Supplementary Estimates in the name of the Under Secretary for War. In the memorandum circulated by command there appeared— Statement of further amount required during the year to meet expenditure not provided for in the original Army Estimates for Suakim Expedition. In the preceding notice they had under the heading "Civil Services, 1896–97," "Egyptian Expedition (Grant in Aid)." But when he referred to the memorandum which had been equally circulated among Members of the House, he found that this notice was either redundant or misleading. It was a notice regarding the Civil Service Estimates of 1897, but in the memorandum there was not a word as to the Civil Service Estimates of 1897, and, instead of following the example he had quoted with regard to the Supplementary Estimate, when they came to this memorandum they found no reference whatever to any Estimate of the current year at all. It was headed, Estimate of the amount required in the year ending 31st March 1897, as a grant in aid of the expenditure incurred in connection with the Egyptian Expedition to Dongola. In the Vote in which this sum was accounted for' they had no mention of a Civil Service Estimate, but there was an entirely new heading—namely, the heading of "Egyptian Government, £798,802." His first position was that this £798,802 did not even claim to be part of the Estimates of last year or in any way supplemental to those Estimates. It was an entirely new Estimate under an entirely new head. It was not an Army, a Navy, or Civil Service Estimate; it was an Egyptian Government Estimate. He begged respectfully to call attention to the fact that under Standing Order 56 the Speaker was held to have left the Chair on the Estimates for 1896–97, and consequently when a Supplementary Estimate or excess vote came on, Mr. Speaker left the Chair automatically, but his submission was this was not a Supplemental Estimate. It was supplemental to nothing. It was an entirely new kind of Estimate not known before, which was presented to the House for the first time, and consequently it came under the rule relating to a new sum, and before Mr. Speaker could leave the chair it would be necessary to make a Motion to that effect, which would be liable to amendment and debate. His submission was that, although Mr. Speaker was out of the Chair with regard to matters belonging to and growing out of the Estimates of 1896–97, this was not part of those Estimates, and did not claim to be part. It was an Estimate under an entirely new head, and consequently, before going into this matter, a Motion must be made that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman has taken two objections. The first is as to the description of the Vote on the Paper. The Vote is, in fact, a Vote for the service of the year ending 31st March 1897, supplemental or additional to those Votes which have been already dealt with for that year, and that it is so sufficiently appears on the Paper. I think there is no doubt that if this, instead of being an additional Estimate, formed part of the original Estimates, it would appear upon the Civil Service Estimates. As regards the suggestion that it is a new matter altogether, and should be dealt with as a separate and original, and not supplemental, Vote, plenty of cases are to be found in which additional Estimates of this kind have been voted by the House upon notices similar to this. In March 1895 there was a grant in aid for Cyprus—a matter upon which there had been no previous opportunity of discussion upon the Estimates. That was brought on in March as an additional Estimate just as this is brought on here. Therefore, as regards that part of the hon. Member's contention the matter is perfectly in order. ["Hear, hear!"] As regards the other point, that there should be a. Motion that I now leave the Chair, with opportunity for Debate before I leave the Chair, I think that objection also is groundless. The Standing Order 56, to which the hon. Member refers, expressly says that, Whenever Committee of Supply stands as an Order of the Day on Monday or Thursday, or now, under the Sessional Order, on Friday, "Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without question put." To-day, Committee of Supply is an Order of the Day, and therefore Standing Order compels me to leave the Chair without question put. The invariable practice has been, that when the Motion has been carried that "Mr. Speaker now leave the Chair" upon first going into the Estimates, any additional or supplementary Vote in Committee of Supply afterwards for a further expenditure in that year, is put to the Committee without the question being put that I leave the Chair. Therefore I think the notice and procedure are quite in order, and I shall now leave the Chair without putting any question.