MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

HC Deb 10 February 1902 vol 102 cc876-919

(4.55.) MR. JOHN REDMOND

, Member for Waterford, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.—"The presentation of a Supplementary Estimate for Civil Service in one sum covering various Departments contrary to the custom of the House"; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

One of the objects the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House stated he had in view in moving the new rules was that there should be some certainty in the minds of hon. Members as to the business to be taken. I venture to submit that in making this Motion I am not in any way departing from that idea. The First Lord of the Treasury had in his mind that we should come down to the House today with the object of discussing the new rules, and the Motion I make raises a discussion on a new rule which the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward, and which he apparently desires to have sanctioned as a settled rule at present without any discussion at all; although in truth it may be said that the rule which the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to pass in this way is one of the most far-reaching importance. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman thoroughly understands the principle, but yet it may be no harm for me to state what the point is, just in two sentences. The ordinary Estimates of the year are put before the House in a series of separate sums for every Department, so that every hon. Member who desires may move an Amendment with reference to a specific Department, and have a discussion and an Amendment on it. And the uniform practice of the House has been followed, and the same rule has been applied, with respect to the Supplementary Estimates. That is to say, if it is found at the commencement of a session that the Estimates passed in the previous session were defective, and that more money was required for certain services and Supplementary Estimates for this additional money are put before the House, they should be put as separate sums for separate Departments, in order that any hon. Member who chooses may find fault with the acts of any Department. That has been the immemorial practice of the House until last year; now it is proposed to entirely alter the whole rule of Supplementary Estimates.

What has happened? There are in this Estimate a number of different items, under different heads and for different classes, and if any hon. Member chooses to move an Amendment on, say, the last item on the list, that would preclude the possibility of any other hon. Member from raising a discussion on any item higher up on the list. In that way the possibility of discussing the items might be completely destroyed, and the whole amount would be put from the Chair in one sum. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a small Supplementary Estimate. I remember that last year it was about a million. This year it is only for a quarter of a million; but the question at issue, is exactly the same, and if the House sanctions this practice, then, I think, we may not be very far from the day when a Minister may come down and propose the original Estimates in one sum, and thereby prevent any adequate discussion, or any control by the House of Commons of the national expenditure, What took place last year is now taking place, and ought, I think, to be a warning to the House of Commons of how careful they ought to be in allowing the Ministry to deviate from the settled practice of the House. Well, what took place last year? I am not one of those who place any efficacy in the use of mere hard words; but I must be allowed to say that anything more scandalous than this issue of these Supplementary Estimates in this form, after what took place in the House last year, it is impossible to conceive. Up to last year, even when obstruction was most rampant, it never suggested itself to any Minister to attempt to introduce this practice, and then it was done without notice to the House. The Vote had to come on for discussion on a Monday, and on the Saturday previous a private notice was sent to the Leader of the Opposition; but so far as the House of Commons was concerned, there was no notice at all; and but for the vehemence of some private Members, the Estimate would have been passed through without discussion. But owing to the vigilance of some Irish Members this, what I venture to call Parliamentary trick, was discovered and a discussion did take place. Then the First Lord of the Treasury came down and made a strong plea to the House, which even to me, who was bitterly opposed to the procedure, seemed a plausible plea. The right hon. Gentleman said— We are now at the 18th March, these Estimates must be carried by a certain day in March in order to fulfil the law. The time of the House is so limited and the days at our disposal are so few that unless we adopt this device it is impossible for us to fulfil the law. And in reply to private Members on both sides of the House—for this was not made a Party matter—the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly stated that he only proposed this alteration in procedure because he was pressed for time, and that it should not be taken as a precedent for the future.

Now, I submit respectfully that this is a most serious matter, that the First Lord of the Treasury obtained the sanction of this House to this rule last year under that plea that it was an emergency rule and would not constitute a precedent; and yet he comes down now and proposes to make it a permanent Rule of the House. There are several quotations I should like to make from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman on 18th March last. The first is an answer to the hon. Member for Poplar, in which the First Lord of the Treasury said— I should hope that after my explanation there will not be any great desire on the part of the House to discuss the innovation— which was an explanation that there were no other means of getting the Estimate passed. The circumstances are altogether special, and special means must be taken to meet them. That was the first statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The second was in answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somersetshire—an hon. Member who has always been, if I may be allowed to say so, jealous of interference with the old habits of the House and the rights of private Members—when he said— It would be some alleviation if his right hon. friend could give them an assurance that this proposal was only made in view of the exceptional circumstances of the present occasion, and was not intended to be made a precedent. He could not conceive, if it were intended to be a precedent, that it should be done in this manner. Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, Hear. Mr. HOBHOUSE said he understood, then, that it was not intended to be a precedent, but was only made in view of the very exceptional circumstances. But even if that were the object he thought it might have been done in a somewhat different manner, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman that some proper consideration might be given to the subject by a Committee selected from all sections of the House. A Select Committee was the only means by which they might come to anything like an agreement as to the procedure on important questions of Supply. When the First Lord came to make a speech himself on the matter, he dealt with the question of establishing a new precedent and altering the rules of the House. He said— There is no danger in the course we have adopted, because it is a course obviously and avowedly adopted in an emergency. The hon. Member for East Somersetshire wished to get a specific pledge or declaration from me. I thought I gave a specific pledge or declaration in reply to a question earlier in the evening. But if the hon. Member desires such a pledge—I should have thought it unnecessary—I will give it in the most unreserved fashion. The only reason this course has been adopted is that we found ourselves driven off from day to day by the length of the discussion on the Civil Service and other Estimates, until it was perfectly obvious that if we were to fulfil the law it would be only by the goodwill of those who have not shown up to the present any great anxiety that we should be able to fulfil it. Then the right hon. Gentleman was interrupted by the hon. Member for East Clare, who asked— Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say what is the pledge he has unreservedly given? Mr. Balfour replied— The statement I made was that this is an emergency operation alone. The House in dealing with a practical question ought to show itself a practical Assembly. I might make further quotations from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think I have cited enough. I have shown that this is an entirely new practice, that up till last year it was absolutely without precedent, and had never been done before in the whole history of the House of Commons, that when challenged the right hon. Gentleman said he had only done it because it was necessary to fulfil the law, and that it was not to be taken as a precedent, and he gave a specific pledge that it was not to be taken as a precedent, that it was only an emergency operation alone. There is no emergency this year. We are only now at 10th February, last year we were at 18th March, and no claim therefore can be made that an emergency has arisen. Yet the right hon. Gentleman comes down, and in violation of what I do not hesitate to say was a very specific and solemn pledge, asks the House of Commons to sanction this alteration in the procedure of the House of Commons without discussion—had I not moved the adjournment of the House. I say this proceeding is not a creditable one to the right hon. Gentleman; and if the House of Commons permits its rights in matters of Supply to be filched away in this manner and new precedents established, the day is possibly near—as I have already said—whena Chancellor of the Exchequer will propose to take the whole Civil Service Estimates in one sum without discussion. I put the point clearly, and I leave it to the House of Commons to decide for itself whether it will agree to this violation of the pledge given last year by the First Lord of the Treasury that a new precedent of a far-reaching character would not be established and so destroy the safeguards which have always been regarded as imperatively necessary for the full and free discussion of Supply by this House.

Motion made and Question proposed ''That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. John Redmond).

(5.13). Mr. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

This is not the first time that the House has been indebted to Irish Members for raising matters of very great importance. Unfortunately I myself was absent at the time this precedent was carried last year—not as a week ender, but on public service—and therefore I was unable to take part in the discussion. But I can only say that when I heard what had taken place I felt a shock, which was all the greater that it had been done by my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury. I felt perfectly certain in my; own mind that, though this had been done in a case of emergency, when there were very few days left to enable the Government to comply with the law, what had been done in an emergency would be repeated again. I only want to made a small contribution to the debate. I, however, happen to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee of this House, whose recommendations are, I believe, always attended by the House. I wish to call the particular attention of the First Lord of the Treasury to a Treasury Minute in January, 1889, in which it was stated that the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee would always receive the earnest consideration of the Treasury. That was in relation to a proposed change in the form of the Estimates, which was comparatively unimportant contrasted with a proposal which lumps whole Estimates in one sum. In the First Report of the Public Accounts Committee of 1890 it says— The first of these letters, dated the 21st of February, informs your Committee that the Treasury have found it desirable in preparing the Estimates for the Civil Services for 1890–91 to effect some re-arrangements of the Votes resulting in a reduction of their number. That was a comparatively lenient offence, and nothing in comparison with what is proposed in this case. The Committee go on to say— Your Committee cannot, therefore, but regret that the Admiralty did not propose, and that the Treasury did not insist upon, a postponement of the adoption of the new form of Estimates until the House of Commons or your Committee had been given an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. I think that is a most exceptionable statement. The Public Accounts Committee is a most competent Committee to consider the form of this business. When there has been hitherto any change in the form of the Estimates, they have been submitted repeatedly to the Public Accounts Committee. The Report goes on to say— Moreover if the changes of form were held to require the judgment of your Committee, it seems only reasonable that they should have been submitted to your Committee before they were adopted, in accordance with the precedents of 1867, when the plans of Messrs. Foster and Vine for the classification of the Civil Service Estimates were submitted to and approved by the Public Accounts Committee of that year, and of 1884, when the scheme for dealing with Army and Navy Extra Receipts was submitted and approved in like manner. Thus in 1867 and 1881, when changes of a very small character were made these changes were previously submitted to the Public Accounts Committee and approved by them. Now I think I will read only one other paragraph from this Report of 1890 in which they proceed to say— Your Committee concur with the opinions expressed in the foregoing extracts from the Report of 1888. They therefore hold that proposals to alter the form of the Estimates and the number of the Votes, similar to those now brought before your Committee, should, in the first instance, be laid before the House, so as to enable the House to examine them, and if it should think fit, to refer them to the Public Accounts Committee before an important change is adopted. Is the Public Accounts Committee to be treated with this contempt and with this disregard? There is no suggestion made to refer the matter to the Public Accounts Committee. Nobody is consulted, and still less is the House consulted. It is all done in the dark, and the Estimates are lumped together in one sum without the slightest approach to an emergency. I cannot but believe that this change has been due to some forgetfulness or some misunderstanding, and I earnestly hope that the First Lord of the Treasury will re-consider his decision and withdraw these Estimates, and before he makes these extremely important constitutional changes now put before us, I hope that he will not only submit them to the Public Accounts Committee for their opinion—which I am sure they will be ready to give—but that he will also submit his proposals to the House before any such alteration is made.

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

I am not going to discuss the merits of this change, because I think it is quite clear to all who heard the debate last year that the right hon. Gentleman not only meant his proposal to be temporary, but he stated also that an emergency had arisen and therefore he had to have recourse to emergency measures. But he went further, and I should like to call his attention to this; he said that while we would probably have to agree to it under the circumstances, if this particular form of procedure which was before us was to become permanent, it ought to be referred to a Committee. The words of the right hon. Gentleman in the debate last year confirm what has fallen from the hon. Member for King's Lynn, for he stated that the Committee on Public Accounts have most strongly urged that no change of this sort ought to be adopted without being considered by a Committee of the House.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

And should not be adopted without being first submitted to the House itself.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

If you send a proposal up to a Committee it would come before the House from that Committee. I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the concluding words of his remarks last year in discussing these matters. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford has pointed out the definite pledges which the right hon. Gentleman gave. In column 292 in Hansard of March 18th, the First Lord of the Treasury said— I do venture to think that, whether the House regards the Government as to blame or not for having met on the 14th of February, we are all agreed that there is but one way to get our Votes through by the legal day. That is to say, these particular Votes on that particular occasion, when the Government argued that they had four or six days only for the Army and Navy Estimates. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say— And that is the way the Government has adopted. If the House take that view, as I think they must, they must defer to a more convenient season the broad question of the procedure in Supply, and if they desire that it should be considered by a Committee upstairs or elsewhere, I shall give any such desire my heartiest support. As far as I am concerned, I heard the whole of this debate, and to a certain extent I initiated it, and I know that there was an impression left on my mind, and I think on the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House—because I remember that the hon. Member for East Somersetshire withdrew his objection—that there was an emergency which had to be met, and the House agreed to it. It was not, however, to be taken in any sense as a precedent, and it was not to be made into a permanent arrangement without further consideration of the matter, and to see whether it would be a good or a bad thing. Under these circumstances, if the right hon. Gentleman will re-read his speech, and recall to his recollection what happened last year, I cannot think that he can possibly press this Amendment without further consideration by the Committee upstairs or by the House itself. I think we all recognise that as Leader of the House when the right hon. Gentleman gives a pledge he sticks to it, and we have never yet had any occasion to reproach him in that respect. Therefore, even though he himself may think that he has not broken his pledge, all I can say is that the impression of a very large majority who heard that debate is that the right hon. Gentleman has not entirely carried out the promise he gave last year. Under these circumstances, and with due regard to the feelings which we all desire to have towards him, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the question. There is one other point to which I wish to draw attention. I asked the right Hon. Gentleman just now why no notice had been given of this proposal, and he replied that notice had been given by the Secretary to the Treasury. I was not in the House when notice was given of this enormous change by the hon. Gentleman at 12 o'clock, just at the interruption of the business on Friday, when the right hon. Gentleman cannot keep his followers together to keep a House. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he did give notice to the House. I understand that he gave notice that there would be a Supplementary Estimate placed on the Table and that he said nothing further.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,) Worcestershire, E.

I think the hon. and learned Member for Waterford will bear me out when I say that I said that I had that day laid on the Table Supplementary Estimates, but they would not be circulated until the latter part of next week, and that when they were circulated they would be in the form adopted last year. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford asked me whether I meant that they would appear under one Resolution, and I said "Yes." I made that statement in moving the adjournment of the House, which is the usual opportunity for giving notice of proposals of this kind.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

Then I withdraw any argument founded upon the statement that the Government did not give notice, but in the debate of last year, in my opinion, the notice was totally inadequate. If the right hon. Gentleman was really going to turn a temporary emergency into a precedent for a permanent alteration, he should give proper notice to the House, and give hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. I do not quite understand what is meant by his argument, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us when is a precedent not a precedent? This, however, is not the question. The point is that an impression was left upon the House in one direction last session, and apart from the merits of this particular case, it is of the utmost importance that any impression left on the House with regard to a pledge by the Leader of the House should be fulfilled to the letter and not be broken.

(5.28) MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

said that the position the First Lord of the Treasury had taken up was simply to blot out as irrelevant what he had done in the House last session. On this assumption, then, there was admittedly no precedent whatever for what he was doing now. Thus he was making a precedent. The invariable practice pursued in this House had been to give the House the opportunity of debating and dividing upon the particular Vote for each Department embraced in this Estimate, and this practice was now to be departed from in the face of a suggestion made by the Standing Committee of this House, appointed to advise the House upon such subjects that no change in the form of Estimates should be made without reference to it. Thus a diminution in the power of the House to express its opinion definitely with references to Votes for each Department was now to take place, and it was a diminution unprecedented under the circumstances, and unheard of before. But the House was not to be asked to decide as to the change. He submitted that was not treating the House with respect. That was not the proper course by which to guard the privileges and the practice of the House. In an important matter of this kind affecting that of which the House in better days was so jealous—its effective control over the Supply of public money—the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, if he thought a change ought to be made, was to propound the change to the House and give Members an opportunity of expressing their opinion on it. Was it to be said that it was only what was written that was law? A large part of the law of this country, civil and criminal, was the common and unwritten law. There was also a common law of Parliament—the usage of unbroken tradition—which was just as powerful as any law laid down by Standing Order. An innovation of the kind proposed ought to be preceded by an opportunity given to the House of considering and dealing with the question. The House was asked to accept the ipse dixit of the right hon. Gentleman that it was convenient to vote the Estimate en bloc, and if it had not been for the Motion made by the hon. Member for Waterford, they would not have been able to express, even by this indirect and inconvenient process, an opinion the merits of what was intended. So far on the ground which the First Lord had taken as to the effect of last session's action. But that action made the case stronger still. When a similar proposal was made by the right hon. Gentleman last session he defended it by stating that it was a matter of urgency and necessity. That was an acknowledgment that it was in principle an objectionable transaction, only to be allowed because the condition of public business and time rendered it necessary. Therefore, it was incumbent on him now, when no such conditions existed, to invite the House by Motion to consider and divide as to the advisability of making this innovation. He hoped that those who were interested in the preservation inviolate of the unbroken practice of the House with respect to control over public finance would by voting for the adjournment express their disapproval of what was now proposed.

(5.35.) Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

I do not think that a question of graver constitutional importance has been introduced, or ever could be suggested to the House of Commons, than that which arises on this Motion. I should be the last person to suggest that there is any desire to escape from the pledges or to break faith with the House on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. I can only account for the course that has been taken by the absolute escape from his memory of everything he did and of everything he said last year. I am quite sure that that is the secret of the position in which he finds himself and in which we find ourselves. What was said by my hon friend who has just spoken is perfectly true. The allegation of emergency last year implied disapproval of the proposal on its own merits. Why has an emergency arisen at all? Why should you not have come down and said there are particular reasons this year of convenience, and that is the way we ought to adopt in future. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think, in reference to the treatment of the House of Commons and the traditions of Parliament, that everything is convenient that suits the temporary condition in which the Government find themselves. Now that is not and cannot be regarded as a safe rule of conduct in this House. We are embarked, as unfortunately we know, in enormous expenditure. There never was a time when it was more necessary for the House of Commons to maintain its control of the expenditure of this country than at the present moment. It is of the very essence of public economy that the House should have adequate opportunity of expressing its opinion upon those heads of expenditure. But of all Estimates the Supplementary Estimates are those which ought to be most carefully examined. The fundamental principle of economy in this country is to call upon the Government at the beginning of every session to lay before the House as accurate estimates of the expenditure of that year as can be made, and if you encourage or permit facilities for multiplying Supplementary Estimates you will lose all control over the original Estimate. Therefore, Supplementary Estimates must be watched carefully.

Let me illustrate what might happen if this practice were allowed. We have had questions raised of remounts, contracts for meat, and so forth. If what is now proposed can be done with regard to the Civil Service Estimate it can be done also with regard to the War Office Estimates, and whenever the Government have got estimates that they have a difficulty about they have only got to slump them all together so that we cannot separate them and we cannot get an issue upon them. I do not know what has happened at the Treasury since my time, but I confess I would as soon have expected an eruption of Vesuvius in the Treasury as expect that a proposal of this kind would be brought forward in a light manner to revolutionise the whole economic principles of the country. I venture to observe that some of the Rules of Procedure weaken the control of the House as a body. I am not speaking for one side of the House or the other, I do contend that there are two powers in the House of Commons—there is the power of the Executive Government to initiate and practically to design the policy and the expenditure of the country, but behind that there is the power of the House of Commons to question the whole matter. It is for that purpose that the estimates have been framed, and have been maintained for generations, at all events, for a very long period, in the form in which they at present stand. If you once relax that, the whole power of control and restraint upon reckless expenditure is gone.

What is the position in which the right hon. Gentleman stands in reference to this matter? Last year, in an emergency, owing to the particular pressure of the war at that time you relaxed the rules, All rules must be relaxed in emergency, but the more you relax rules in emergency the more carefully you ought to maintain them when the emergency passes, otherwise the whole of your security is gone. Now, the language which was held by the right hon. Gentleman last session pointed to this. He said that in the House of Commons— No man in his senses would believe that this is a proposal I should make except in an emergency. But then, suddenly, he gives notice. All I can say is that it is worthless to give notice almost sub silentio on a Friday night, which will never come before the great mass of the House until Monday. That is the sort of notice in which there is a complete revolution made in the whole economic system of the House of Commons. It is an absolute destruction of the control of the House of Commons. But then the right hon. Gentleman says it is for the convenience of the House. Well, the notion the right hon. Gentleman seems to have formed of the convenience of the House is that nobody should have any trouble, and, least of all, His Majesty's Government. But we have something else to consider. We have to consider the security of the country against useless and reckless expenditure. What was it the right hon. Gentleman said in finishing his statement last year? He said— If the House take that view, as I think they must, they must defer to a more convenient session the broad question of their Procedure in Supply, and if they desire that it should be considered by a Committee upstairs or elsewhere, I shall give any such desire my hearty support. There is a pledge as distinct as anything can be that if this question was to be raised under the general question of our convenience it should not be done without consultation with the House and a Committee upstairs. Well, that is what we are entitled to ask from the right hon. Gentleman, and I cannot help feeling, as we all know, that it is his disposition to fulfil to the letter any undertaking that he has held out, and that he will not attempt to press this Procedure which he has stated ought to be done by consultation with the House. They must defer to a more convenient season the broad question of the Procedure in Supply. Well, this is the broad question of the Procedure in Supply. That is the desire of both sides, that if this change is to be made it should be made after due consideration by the House. If that desire exists, and I think it does, the right hon. Gentleman to-night will doubtless give it his hearty support; he has promised that he will. If he has made that promise I have no doubt he will adhere to it. I believe I express the general feeling of the House when I say that, if the change is to be made, it ought to be carefully examined, and if it should be proved to be convenient and safe let it be adopted, but if it is proved otherwise let it be withdrawn. I think that is a reasonable view to take of the case, and it is one entirely consistent with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

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

It is my misfortune in this debate to have to differ from nearly all the speakers who have taken part in it. I will take them one by one. My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn complains that by this procedure we are slighting the Committee on Public Accounts, whose business it is, in his view, to make themselves responsible for the Estimates. I do not so read the responsibility of that Committee. So far as I understand their functions, as laid down by the Standing Orders—and I recognise I am not so great an authority on the point as my hon. friend—it is to see that the work of appropriation has been properly carried out. If anything that we proposed by this change would in the smallest degree hamper or impede the Committee on Public Accounts in safeguarding the appropriation of public money, I think the hon. Member would be right in saying that before the Government made any such change that Committee should have been consulted. But I venture to point out to the House that there is nothing in this change which touches the appropriation of money at all. Money is appropriated in precisely the old form; it is in the old form that it comes before the Committee on Public Accounts; for that reason I venture to say both to the House and to the Committee on Public Accounts that I do not think that they can properly regard themselves as being slighted by the action we have taken.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

was understood to say the matter should have been referred to the Committee.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

My hon. friend will observe that there have been on many previous occasions changes made in the Estimates, which were never referred to this House, but were referred to the Committee on Public Accounts.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

They affected only the classification, not the appropriation.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

But the classification does affect the appropriation. I will not argue the point further with my hon. friend. I have no doubt whatever I am right in the statement I made to the House. When such changes have been made in the Estimates on previous occasions, by which Votes were amalgamated or made to coalesce, and did affect the appropriation, no doubt it was proper that the Public Accounts Committee should be consulted. This does not affect the question of the amalgamation of Votes, and the question of appropriation is not concerned. So much for my hon. friend and the Committee on Public Accounts.

Now I come to the actual merits and advantages of the change, and to what I admit is a question of great importance—the course taken by myself last year, and the pledges I gave to the House. I entirely deny that anything which fell from me last year can by any fair process of interpretation be taken to invalidate the procedure we have adopted this year. ["Oh, oh."] That is my opinion. Last year we carried out the change under the stress of a great public emergency at a few hours notice towards the end of the financial year. I was then asked whether that was to be regarded as a precedent. I said distinctly that it was not. But did anybody asking me for that pledge seriously mean that if, on a survey of the whole circumstances of the case, the Government thought that was a convenient method of doing public business, we were precluded because of that emergency from adopting it at a time when no emergency existed? ["Oh."] Would any Government in their senses give such a pledge? How could they? I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire asking Mr. Speaker a Question, and, if I recollect aright, Mr. Speaker said that no doubt if such a thing were done again notice would have to be given. Well, I was careful to give notice. What notice? A notice which did not pass sub silentio, which was the subject of cross-examination at the time by the leaders of the Irish party. Therefore the whole Irish Party have been aware of it for ten days. ["No."] Well, the Leader of the Irish Party was aware of it.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

The statement made by the Secretary to the Treasury just now was absolutely accurate. The House was just adjourning; I do not think there were two dozen Members in the House; they were scurrying out through the doors. So disordered were the proceedings that I happened to be sitting there (pointing to Front Opposition Bench), and I noticed the hon. Gentleman was saying something. In the most informal way I said "What?" and he spoke across the House to me. I am perfectly certain that not another Member in the House heard or understood what the hon. Gentleman said.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Everybody in the House must have understood it, after the cross-examination which the right hon. Gentleman carried on.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

"Cross-examination" is really not fair. It consisted of my asking, without rising from my seat, "Do you mean merely the same as last year?" and the hon. Gentleman said "Yes."

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

One Resolution.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

Yes; there was no cross-examination. There was not a word in the Press.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I regret that, from no fault of my own, I was not present; but let me point out that it is really ludicrous—it is playing with the House—to say that, when the Leader of the Irish Party—which is not the least active section of the Opposition—was fully seised ten days ago of the purport of the change, the Government have attempted to carry the change sub silentio. Such a statement really will not hold water for a moment.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

Ten days?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes, ten days ago—Friday week. I am sorry that by an oversight I did not myself give notice on the Friday afternoon, as I had intended, but I requested my hon. friend to do it in my absence. He did so apparently under circumstances which, at all events, gave notice to a very important section of the Opposition, and I should have thought there was sufficient intercommunication between the different parts of the House to prevent it being suggested for a moment that the thing was done sub silentio. ["Oh!"]

Now I come to the question of the merits of the case, and the convenience of the House. Let the House recall in what position the Government were at the beginning of this year. When we had to survey the whole question of the rules and of our procedure, we had behind us the lessons of last year, Those lessons, as far as we could judge, were twofold. One was that there were a certain number of Gentlemen in this House who, if they got the chance of running the Government against the law on March 31st, would not hesitate to do so, and that there were also a certain number of Gentlemen in this House who apparently would have been glad, so far as we could judge by their conduct with regard to the Estimates, so to carry on the discussion of those Estimates as to multiply the number of divisions which would have to be taken under the old system on the ultimate and penultimate days of Supply. Those were the two facts the Government had to consider in asking the House to reform its procedure. We did consider them, and hon. Gentlemen will see, so far as the second of those points is concerned, we did embody another remedy in the rules now before the House. They will see in the Supply rule now before the House that, on the ultimate and penultimate days of Supply, the Estimates will be put in the form upon which the House determined in August last—in an emergency. We propose that that should be part of the permanent procedure of the House.

Then the question arose of how we were to deal with Supplementary Estimates. A great many friends of mine, with whom I discussed this question, thought it might be desirable to have a rule dealing with Supplementary Estimates before March 31st on the same fixed system as that for dealing with the ordinary Estimates of the year. But I was of opinion then, and I am still of opinion, that that is too rigid a way of dealing with Supplementary Estimates, that if a certain number of days were allotted before March 31st for dealing with Supplementary Estimates there might be too many if the Government brought in very few Supplementary Estimates, and, on the other hand, there might be too few if the Government brought in a great many Supplementary Estimates. Therefore, on that ground, I rejected the plan. The only other plan which suggested itself to me, as a part of our general system, is that which no doubt was adopted in an emergency last year, and which I thought then and still think gives the House sufficient power of scrutinising Supplementary Estimates, and at the same time, makes it impossible for any section of Members, by prolonging the discussion, to force the House to break the law.

AN HON. MEMBER

said the right hon. Gentleman promised that the matter should be considered by a Committee.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I was careful not to promise that.

SIR WILLIAM. HARCOURT

Read your speech.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That is not what I promised; I will return to that directly. I say that, in my judgment and in that of my colleagues, this is a proper system for dealing with Supplementary Estimates before March 31st, while the more fixed and rigid limitation laid down by the Supply Rule is the proper method of dealing with Estimates after March 31st. That being the broad view of the conveniences of the operation, let me for a moment dwell on the alleged inconvenience. The alleged inconvenience I understand to be this—that, as it is possible for all these items to be under one head, it is possible that one item, which may be of great importance, will not be discussed at all in consequence of the closure being moved before all the items have been dealt with in turn. I would point out that the Chairman of Committees, by the practice of this House, takes care that no earlier item should be shut out by the discussion of a later item. The same privileges of discussing the Estimates will be given to the House as are given under the old system, but if there be a deliberate plan to drive the Estimates over March 31st, that plan can be defeated. I was amazed at the statement which fell from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He said that the next thing would be that we should do the same thing in regard to the Army and the Navy Estimates. Why, we do it now in the Army Estimates and in the Navy Estimates, and we have done it from time immemorial. The Navy and Army Supplementary Estimates are blocked precisely in this fashion. In the ordinary Estimates for the various Departments for the year they are put down as separate Votes, but in the Supplementary Estimates they are all taken under one head. I cannot understand why that which is proper and convenient for the Army and Navy, should not be proper for the Civil Service Votes. It is not, as has been suggested, a question of the accounting officer. What concerns us is the proper and adequate discussion of Supply, and I venture to say that a system which is found, and has for many years been found, fittingly proper when dealing with the Army and the Navy is not unfitting when you are dealing with the Civil Service. But it may be urged that the Questions under the Army and Navy Votes are all cognate, while the Civil Service Estimates relate each to a different question.

But is not that rather a technical objection? Is it seriously maintained that a Vote for the Astronomer Royal at the Cape is closely allied to the question of water tube boilers? Those are two matters with regard to which a Supplementary Estimate would come under one head. Why should we adopt absolutely different principles when dealing with Supplementary Estimates of one kind than those which we think are absolutely adequate when dealing with Supplementary Estimates of quite a different kind. We have occasionally to deal with excess Votes, not in the present financial year, but coming from the last financial year. Are they treated under separate heads? Not at all, for they are massed and blocked precisely in the shape and form that we propose the ordinary Supplementary Estimates of the Government. I venture to say that so far from this practice being a novelty, which the House ought to look at with the gravest suspicion, it is, I believe, a convenient method of dealing with the Civil Service Estimates which has the sanction of practice behind it, of practice in regard to excess Votes and also in regard to our Army and Navy Votes.

There is another point to be considered. It is not wise to make it too difficult for the Departments to bring forward Supplementary Estimates. I agree that the practice may be abused, and that great masses of Supplementary Estimates are an inconvenience and even a financial danger. But if it were made difficult for the Departments to bring forward their Supplementary Estimates, they would be compelled to ask, in the first instance, for larger sums than might be required in order to cover any possibility of excess. That would be a most serious matter. A speech of mine made last year has been quoted. What it came to is that the House ought to look to the whole of the broad question of the consideration of the Estimates.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

You spoke of these particular Supplementary Estimates.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I beg your pardon, that is exactly what I did not do. Let me quote to the House the exact words. The words I used were— The House must defer to a more convenient season the broad Question of procedure in Supply, and whenever that is taken into account we ought to have a Committee. I indicated in my opening speech on the new rules that the whole question of the control of Supply by the House ought to be considered by a Committee. There are points that cannot be discussed without the preliminary assistance of a Committee. The present procedure of the House is in many respects very wasteful of the public time, but it gives the House a very full and ample control over general questions of policy. In the present day, Committee of Supply is perfectly useless as a check on the expenditure of the Government. Constantly the discussions are used as a lever to encourage the increase of expenditure, but they are not an instrument for producing economy. Constantly we get speeches followed by a suggestion that we should increase the vote, and from which the obvious conclusion and the intended inference is that the expenditure of the Government is niggardly for that particular vote, and that a more liberal use of money would redound greatly to the public advantage. Therefore, I do not believe that any hon. Member in this House in his heart supposes that the Committee of Supply is an instrument to produce such economy as the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of. Committee of Supply serves the greater purpose of acting as a check on the policy of the Government and as a means of criticising the policy of the Government, not from the point of view of pounds, shillings, and pence, but from the point of view of Imperial policy and efficient administration. That is the point of view taken in all really interesting debates in Supply, whether it be from water-tube boilers, a sufficiency of cruisers, or prison arrangements, or whatever it be, it is not economy, but it is efficiency or general policy which comes under the criticism of the House. I believe that I indicated in the speech which I made at the beginning of the session with regard to these new Rules that not only will the Government support a proposal for referring the whole broad question of Supply to a Committee, but it will probably be the duty of the Government to propose such a Committee. Whether they will be able to hit upon some plan for meeting this great difficulty I do not know, but until they do certainly whatever we may hope to get from our arrangements in Supply, and from the constant discussion in Supply of this or that question, until they do hit upon some such plan I fear that the control of this House, while complete and efficient as regards policy, must remain weak and inefficient as regards the details of expenditure. I hope I have made clear our intentions, and certainly we have no desire to spring anything as a surprise upon the House. I hope I have made clear the general motive which influenced us, and do not let us be criticised in this matter for want of good faith.

(6.15.) SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

The right hon. Gentleman towards the close of his speech has given us a long disquisition upon the general question of the utility of Committee of Supply, and stated his view of the intention of the Government with regard to it. That was exceedingly interesting and valuable, but, although technically relevant no doubt to the subject now before us, really was, to a large extent, outside the immediate purpose for which the Motion before the House has been moved. That Motion was raised to deal with three questions. First of all there is the question whether the methods the Government are adopting to deal with the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates is a right method; the second question is whether what is being proposed is being carried out in the proper way; and the third question refers to the obligations that we think were laid upon the Government in this matter in consequence of the discussion of last year. I venture to think that for the purpose of this immediate Motion I have named these three questions in the inverse order of their importance, but the most important and primary matter we have to consider is how we ought to view the proposal of the Government in the light of what passed last year. There is one word in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman last year which seems to throw more light than anything else on the matter. It was the word "danger." He said— There is no danger in the course which we have adopted, because it is a course obviously and avowedly adopted in an emergency. There is no danger! Danger of what?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It was done with 24 hours notice.

Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

That does not constitute a danger. What is the danger which the House saw, and apparently the right hon. Gentleman recognised the fact. The House did detect some danger in what was being done, and the right hon. Gentleman soothed the susceptibilities and calmed the fears of the House by saying that after all there is no danger, because it is obviously and avowedly adopted in an emergency, therefore it is a course which will not be repeated and which the House need not look upon with much jealousy and suspicion, and yet the very first year that comes round after these words we find identically the same course proposed. I do not think that is dealing fairly by the House. Whether the right hon. Gentleman had the better or the worse of the argument last year does not matter. He was, at all events, perfectly cognisant of the fact that the House did regard this course with suspicion, and that he soothed the House by practically a promise and pledge that it would not be repeated. He now says that from an examination of the case itself for this change he has come to the conclusion that it is for the convenience of all parties in the House—not only for the Government but for those who take an interest in the smooth conduct of public affairs, and he brings it forward.

Now I come to my second point. Knowing as he did what occurred last year, and feeling of the House regarding it if he was going to bring it forward it ought to have been brought forward not only with a sufficient degree of publicity to swear by, but in the most public and straightforward way he found it possible to adopt. The House ought to have had the fullest notice of what was going to happen after what occurred last year. A mere notice coming at the close of business, unreported in any newspaper, when 99 in 100 of the Members of the House were not present, was certainly not sufficient notice. The right hon. Gentleman thinks he did enough because the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Irish Party knew of it. I remember last year I was the unfortunate victim of his excuses because on a Saturday late at night he sent to me individually notice of what he was going to do on Monday. The Notice Paper of the House of Commons was changed suddenly after being issued. The right hon. Gentleman with his invariable courtesy sent me notice with the view, no doubt, that I might prepare not only myself but my friends for what was going to happen. Unfortunately I was ill in bed, which many of us are at this time of year, and therefore, I was unable to take advantage of his kindness. Now it is the Leader of the Irish Party he has communicated with, and he thinks that is enough.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

There was a communication made across the floor of the House. It was not a private communication, but I had the misfortune not to be reported. The communication was made in this House to the Members.

Sir. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

It was made across the floor of the House, but across nothing else. If I may say so, there was too much floor and too little House for the purpose of giving this public intimation. But I would repeat what I have said that after all the circumstances of last year the Government were fully warned of the disposition of the House towards this proposal, and they ought to have brought it forward in the most formal and public manner possible. Then another circumstance comes in. The right hon. Gentleman is engaged in reforming and altering the rules of procedure of the House. That furnishes an opportunity for altering in some way the rules governing the procedure in Vote of Supply. That is not what is done. No hint is given except this midnight intimation of the Financial Secretary of the Treasury. I think the House has good reason to complain in this matter apart from the merits of the case. Let me say a word or two on the merits of the case. We claim that there was a pledge by the right hon. Gentleman when he said that his desire was that the matter should be referred to a Committee. He claims that it was a larger matter that was included than this point.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The broader question.

Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Well, then, by all means let us have the broader question, but until the broader question has come before the Committee let the status quo be maintained. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to have a Committee to consider all the circumstances in which the House deals with Supply, well and good. I am very glad to hear of it. But in that case let us not make a great change like this which takes away the rights which immemorially belonged to the Committee of the House of Commons. Let the Government not do that at the very time when they are going to appoint a Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the difference between the Army Estimates, the Navy Estimates, and the Civil Service Estimates in this respect. Surely there is a very obvious difference between them. The Army Estimates and the Navy Estimates deal with one order of things, each with one Department, but the Civil Service Estimates deal with a number of heterogeneous, disparate subjects, controlled by different Departments. There are obviously the best reasons for treating them with separateness which may not be necessary in the case of the Army and Navy Estimates. I maintain that no alteration ought to have been made if there is any expectation of a Committee being appointed. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that, after all, the action of the House in supply in the interest of economy is very slight, that it is hardly of any value whatever, and that it affords no check upon expenditure. No check upon expenditure! Will the right hon. Gentleman conceive what the position would be for the Minister at the head of a Department if there was no examination in the House of Commons in Committee of Supply. He would be helpless in the hands of his expert and professional advisers who would insist on increasing all sorts of heads of expenditure which now he is able to keep within moderation because of the knowledge that they must all come before the House of Commons and must be considered there.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

There is the Treasury.

Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The Treasury! The right hon. Gentleman really astounds me. The Treasury has its sins to answer for and it has its advantages and blessings to the public as well. But after all the great controller—the great ultimate controller—of public expenditure is the House of Commons. and not the Treasury. Although it is quite true that with the system of party majorities to which we are accustomed, a reduction is very seldom carried in the House of Commons, yet the fact that everything has to be put in the Estimates and must be brought before the public examination and consideration of the House of Commons, is a very material factor in checking expenditure. As I said when I began, this is rather beside the question. I do not care at all about the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. The question before us is a simple one. Is this the proper time to introduce a change in the form of submitting these Estimates, a change which the House rejected last year, and which the House only accepted last year because of extraordinary urgency, and a change which can be perfectly well considered by the Committee which is proposed to be set up? On all these grounds I submit that the Government would be better advised if they would withdraw the proposal and introduce the Estimates in the old form; and then consider, or invite a Committee of the House to consider, what improvements, if any, are required in our system. The necessity of such a Committee I do not dispute, and I trust that its deliberations will be of advantage, but when it is on the eve of being appointed, surely it is better to adhere to the old and well-established form rather than to accept a form which was rejected last year and which was only accepted because of the extraordinary urgency of the case, and which is a departure from the immemorial practice of Parliament.

(6.30.) MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

I hope I am not too sanguine in expressing the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be disposed to listen on this occasion to what I believe to be the general feeling of the House. My right hon. friend rode off on a side issue, that he gets uncommonly little support from the House in the direction of economy. But the point we have to decide is whether so important a departure in Parliamentary practice is to be made without the House having a legitimate, opportunity presented to it of considering the change. This opportunity is due to the initiative of a private Member who has availed himself of one of the few remaining forms of the House for the ventilation of important public questions—a form which is about to be practically taken away from us. Why, under the proposed new rules, the Motion of the hon. Gentleman would have been relegated to the wastepaper basket of the dinner-hour or to the dust bin of midnight. The House of Commons would not have had the opportunity of considering a question vitally affecting one of the fundamental functions of the House. The right hon. Gentleman last year appealed to the House with perfect candour and courtesy for allowance to be made for what was regarded as an irregularity, and stated that the case was one of emergency. But there is no question of emergency this year, for it is more than six weeks to the end of the financial year. I think it is very much to be regretted that after only a casual intimation across the floor of the House when the House was nearly empty—an intimation which also was not reported—such a vast change in our constitutional arrangements should be made without adequate discussion.

(6.35.) MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)

I do not make any excuse for intervening in this debate, because I think I am the first Member on the back Opposition Benches who has taken the opportunity of putting his view of the case to the House. I do not know what opinion hon. Gentlemen who sit on that side of the House have formed of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury, but I confess that we on this side heard it with absolute astonishment. If ever a fair pledge has been given to the House it was that employed by the First Lord of the Treasury last year when the Supplementary Estimates came up, and I think the tone of the right hon. Gentleman in his speech to-night must have considerably diminished the respect which those who sit on this side of the House have felt for the right hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "Oh, oh," and "Divide."] The pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman in such distinct terms last year should be adhered to, if we are to accept in future pledges of that sort. Not a single argument on the ground of emergency which was the plea in favour of the proposal last year, has been adduced on that side of the House. Seven weeks must elapse before the conclusion of the financial year; and the legislative proposals of the Government are not of such a nature as to exclude the full consideration of the Supplementary Estimates. The First Lord of the Treasury has constantly said in the House, and he repeated again tonight, that the minute consideration of the Estimates is the opportunity of the private Member for the discussion of Imperial affairs. In this very Supplementary Estimate which he has pre- sented to the House, large questions of Imperial policy are raised in connection with the war in South Africa and the position in the Far East, on which there is no other opportunity of raising debate, and on which private Members can speak; and, therefore, I do think it is very unfair of the right hon. Gentleman to say, that just as all matters connected with the Army and Navy are cognate subjects, and therefore may sometimes be taken under one head and only one question can be raised, so also should be the case with the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates. These are subjects that ought not to be lumped together and on which only one debate on one class, and one speech can be made. [Cries of "Divide."] I can understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite want to get to the end of this debate, but not one single argument has been adduced in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. The only two gentlemen who have risen from the Government Benches to address have directed their arguments against the present proposals and I do not understand why a private Member on this side of the House is not to be allowed to speak. I want to put a plain question to the First Lord of the Treasury. He told us that this was not to be taken as a precedent; and last year he said it was not to be taken as a precedent.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

What does the hon. Gentleman mean?

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE

I am asking a question and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me an answer. How many times is this Motion to be moved in this House before it is to be counted a precedent?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is a precedent this year, of course.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE

Then, this is a precedent for allowing the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates to be put down in one block and only allowing the House to discuss one subject. Very well, we have got an admission.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

What does the hon. Member call "getting an admission"? I distinctly said, if he has done me the honour of listening to my speech, that we had to consider at the beginning of the year how we could arrange the Estimates for the convenience of the House, and I said part of our plan was embodied in the proposed Standing Order and another part of our plan was embodied in this proposal. Of course it is a precedent.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE

What was not to become a precedent last year is to be a precedent this year.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Hear, hear!

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE

Now we know exactly where we are. While we were promised that the proposal last year was not to form a precedent, now that it has been proposed a second time it is to be a precedent for all time. Well, that does limit the power of Parliament over the Estimates in a way which is very detrimental to the control of this House over expenditure. It is useless for the right hon. Gentleman to take credit for extending the opportunities of discussing ordinary Supply to 15 or 20 days, if on the other hand he limits the opportunities of discussing the Supplementary Estimates which are essential to the good conduct of the affairs of the Departments. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was not a serious one, and was only meant to blind the House to the real nature of his proposal. I confess that this debate shows how very carefully we ought to watch the Rule, for putting off Motions for the adjournment of the House, proposed to be embodied in the new Rules, because had these new Rules been in force we could not have had this most interesting and instructive debate, but it would have been shelved as inconvenient to the Government.

(6.42.) MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

I should like to say a word or two on this matter. This is a very important alteration in the Rules. To establish a precedent simply at the will of the Executive is a principle we should be rather shy of accepting. There was a Treasury Minute on 12th January, 1889, in which the Treasury stated that they agreed to no extensive or important change in the form of the Estimates should in future be adopted before being submitted to the Committee on Public Accounts. If that was true in regard to the form of the Estimates, it was still more true in regard to the alteration of the form of the Estimates without the House being consulted. I am not going to inquire whether this is a good plan or not, but it is somewhat strange that it required the right hon. Gentleman three quarters of an hour to explain away what had happened. To my mind it is a very serious matter to slump together all the various items in these Estimates. They contain items of every variety relating to the Foreign Office, Africa, the Colonial Office, Prisons, Diplomacy, Inland Revenue, Post Office, etc. Why could not the five millions voted the other day have been thrown in as well? I protest against this change being made, in spite of the Treasury Minute, without the House being consulted. It is parting with one of the most important checks which the House possessed. If the matter is of importance, it is strange, inasmuch as we are altering the Rules of procedure that it is not to be considered. If the House thought proper to alter the Rule, nothing could be said against it, but I do protest most strongly against this great change being made simply on the ipse dixit of the Government.

(6.46.) Sir ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)

I took part in the debate on this matter last session, and I certainly relied on the impression conveyed by the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, that the course then pursued would not be repeated. The Supplementary Estimates for the Army and Navy have been treated, from time immemorial, in the way in which it is now proposed to treat the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, which have always been exempt from the method of treatment. Obviously, there is some reason for the distinction. I myself believe it is because that in the Army and Navy Estimates you can shift money from one item to another within limits; whereas, in the Civil Service Estimates, the appropriation of the money is strictly and rigidly confined to the express item from which it was voted. Now the Government propose to alter that method which is part of what is rightly called the old common law of Parliament, without consulting the House of Commons, or without bringing it before the Public Accounts Committee. I think that may have very serious results. In the first place, I am not at all certain, when you assimilate the form of the Civil Service Estimates to the form of the army and Navy Estimates, that the corresponding change should not be possible, and that you will be entitled to shift money appropriated from one item to another. There was a disclaimer last session with regard to that, but there has been no disclaimer so far in the present discussion. In addition you will have this consequence—that instead of a separate series of discussions, each attached to a particular Vote, and therefore confined to it, you will have a confused, blurred, indistinct discussion, ranging over all the items and leaping from one to another, so that you cannot fix the Government to any particular point. That would be very inconvenient. Why this old custom should be taken from us I do not know. I myself have never been in the habit of appealing to the wisdom of our ancestors, though I am now more inclined in that direction than I was before. I leave the question of merits entirely out; it is in the possession of the House, and the House can deal with it, but I have this further to say on the subject. I am not going to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would for a moment consciously depart from any pledge he had given, but he will acknowledge that the impression produced on the minds of hon. Members by his speech last session was not quite the impression which he presented to us to-night. Last year the right hon. Gentleman gave us as a reason why this change should be made, that an emergency existed. He suggested no other reason. He had one simple excuse, if his present position is accurate. He might have said that the change was for the convenience of the House and that it was right. But he did not do that. He explained that it was owing to an emergency, and that time was limited as there was only a very few days left, and it was on that ground and that ground alone that he based his action. That certainly conveyed to my mind exactly the same impression that it conveyed to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Thanet division, and no one listening to that debate would believe that the right hon. Gentleman conceived himself at liberty to put forward the very next year the same proposal which he had defended on that very limited ground. Such an alteration embodied on the ancient practice of the House of Commons is a defiance and violation of our ancient practice. I am sorry to say it is not the first nor will it be the last that will be made, unless hon. Members opposite will see that it is to their interest as well as to that of other Members to prevent such things being done.

(6.52.) MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, in which he appeared as the defender of the wisdom of our ancestors and as an upholder of the traditions of Parliamentary practice, is one that would indeed have astonished me, if earlier in the debate the Leader of the Opposition had not made himself a defender of the week-ender who goes away before business is finished on Friday.

Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I did not defend that,

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The right hon. Gentleman says he did not defend that, but he complained that a statement made in this House on Friday evening—

Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Not because it was Friday, but because it was evening.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The right hon. Gentleman's statement is even wider than I supposed. Not only does he justify hon. Members going away before business is finished, but he justifies them going away at any time before the rising of the House; and he made complaint that a statement publicly made before the House adjourned was as good as no statement at all. After all, I do not think that the case on the one side or the other can be rested on the amount of notice that was given. Not only was notice given in the House, but for several days past hon. Members have had the Estimates in their hands. I wish, however, to draw the attention of the House to the argument of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and also to the change which we propose to actually make, because his speech seems to disclose some very considerable misconception as to the nature of the change, and as to our present position. The hon. Gentleman argued that at the present time, under the Army and Navy Votes, an excess on one Vote might, with Treasury sanction, be met by a saving on another Vote, but that as regards sub-heads of the Civil Service Estimates no alteration could be made without the sanction of Parliament. [Several hon. Members dissented.] If hon. Gentlemen will allow me to proceed, they will find, I think, that the hon. Gentleman will bear me out in saying that he used the word "sub-head."

SIR ROBERT REID

No, Sir, I did not.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I accept the hon, Gentleman's correction at once; but the House will understand that, within the scope of the Vote, an excess on one sub-head may be met by a saving on another sub-head, with the consent of the Treasury. I merely mention that because I understood the hon. Gentleman to speak specifically of sub-heads, and I wish to show that the appropriation must proceed in exactly the same way. I wish to explain in the clearest possible manner that there can be no difference whatever in the appropriation of the money or in the accounting for it. The same officers will be responsible, and will have to account for it as if each sum were passed as a separate Vote, and when we come to the Appropriation Act it will be made exactly in the same way as if the Votes were taken separately. I wish to make it perfectly clear that there will be no change in the responsibility of the accounting officers or in the appropriation of the money. If the hon. Gentlemen will look at the Appropriation Act of last session they will see how the appropriation of the different items was preserved according to the Votes for which they were required, and it will be done exactly in the same way this year. The hon. Gentleman went on to argue that the difference in the power of appropriating money between different Votes as regards the Army and Navy from that which obtained under the Civil Service Estimates, was due to the fact that the Army and Navy Votes were cognate Votes.

SIR ROBERT REID

I never said anything of the kind. On the contrary, what I said was that it was a pity that there had been such a very wide difference in practice, from time immemorial, between the Army and Navy Votes on the one side and the Civil Service Votes on the other, and I stated that the difference probably corresponded with the power of shifting money in one case and not in the other.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

What I want to point out to the House is this. As a matter of fact the Army and Navy Votes raise questions as wide apart from anything that can be included in the Supplementary Estimates as the poles. Last year the Army Supplementary Estimates took money for military purposes in South Africa, and for military purposes in China; two sets of operations, having nothing to do with one another, which did not arise out of the same set of facts, and which could not be guided by the same conditions So for the life of me I cannot understand why proposals uniformly acted upon with regard to the Army and Navy Estimates should in the case of Civil Service Estimates raise such antagonism in the minds of hon. Members.

(7.1.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

The main question is whether the First Lord of the Treasury when the discussion took place last year gave a pledge to the House of Commons, and if so what that pledge was. I have listened with absolute astonishment to the attitude taken up by the First Lord of the Treasury in this matter. Let me read the House a brief quotation from the debate of last year on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman then said: The hon. Member for East Somersetshire wishes to get a specific pledge or declaration from me. I thought I gave a specific pledge or declaration in reply to a Question earlier in the evening. But if the hon. Member desires such a pledge—I should have thought it unnecessary—I will give it in the most unreserved fashion. Now what was the pledge, was there any meaning in these words or was there not? If there was any meaning at all, what meaning could be conveyed to the House unless it was this; that if any alteration was carried out it would not be completed without giving the House an opportunity to discuss the matter. To make the thing more clear the hon. Member for East Clare intervened and asked: What is the pledge he has unreservedly given. And the First Lord's answer is— The statement I made was that this is an emergency operation, and an emergency operation alone. I want to know whether those words had any meaning or were meant to have any meaning, and if so what the meaning was. Surely they could only have one meaning and that was this—that the First Lord of the Treasury would not avail himself of the change then made to create a precedent the next year without giving the House an opportunity of discussing the matter. That is made clear when we turn back to the complaint which had been made by the hon. Member for Waterford when originating the discussion.

That was the complaint on which the whole of the debate last year originated; that the Government proposed to make a great fundamental alteration in the method of submitting Civil Service Estimates without giving the House an opportunity for discussing it, and the pledge the right hon. Gentleman gave us was that he would not avail himself of his action on that particular occasion, which he described as being forced upon him by the emergency in which he was placed, to repeat the operation next year. Now I want to know the meaning of— Not treating the proceedings as a precedent. I say that phrase has only one meaning, which is that you will not repeat the operation without giving the assembly in which that operation took place an opportunity of discussing the matter. What is the extraordinary position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman? When reminded of the pledge he said— In ever gave such a promise. How could a Member of a Government give such a promise to bind a Government for all time to come? That was not the pledge. The pledge was that he would give the opportunity to the House. Nobody would have complained of his embodying this change in his new rules, because then we should have had the opportunity we desire. The complaint is that he should make this great alteration on his own authority and that of the Treasury without affording this opportunity to the House.

There is one point which has not been alluded to in this discussion, and that is that in the present instance it is much worse than it was last year, because last year 10 out of the 29 of the Supplementary Votes had already been taken under the ordinary rule, and two or three nights given to the discussion of them, and it was only when the Government found themselves in such a position that they had to appeal to the necessities of the case that they took the other 19 Votes; but this year they come down to the House, and, without any plea of emergency, they ask us to adopt this radical and important departure from the settled practice of the House as regards Supplementary Estimates, and not, as last year, in regard to a portion of them that had not been passed under the ordinary rule. That being the case, I think there is a great deal more implied and involved in this proceeding than appears on the surface, and there is no difference in the principle if the Government were to take the ordinary Civil Service Estimates in the same way. It might be a greater thing, but there is nothing more in it, so far as the principle is concerned, and no greater departure from the settled practice of the House, if they came and planked down the whole of the Estimates in a lump sum and asked us to vote the whole lot. I think it will be apparent to the House that this is a serious proceeding. Look at the position. The First Lord of the Treasury, having passed lightly over the main points on which this Motion for the adjournment was moved tonight, entered into an eloquent and interesting disquisition on the whole question of Supply, and announced that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Select Committee to consider the whole question of dealing with Supply in the House of Commons. If that is so, why not leave this Supplementary Estimate until the Committee has dealt with the matter? We are going presently to discuss a new set of rules, and we are going to have a great discussion as to procedure, and two Committees are to sit, one to consider private business, and one to consider the question of Supply, and yet the Government will not relegate the whole question of procedure to a strong Committee. We are getting into a tangle, and it seems to me that it would be far better for the Government to let the procedure of the House alone until we had a Report of a strong Committee which we could consider at our leisure. But as regards the present discussion, I am clearly of opinion that the whole question we have to consider is this, that the Leader of the House, whether he intended or not, left the House under a distinct pledge, and the whole of this procedure appears to be at variance with the pledge given by him.

*(7.12.) MR. SEELY (Lincoln)

I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will reconsider his position. I think the most important thing in the management of the rules of this House is that hon. Gentlemen, who sit on one side of the House should feel absolutely confident that any arrangement made with them, or any understanding, should be strictly carried out. Now I think the First Lord of the Treasury knows that we have such a high opinion of him that we can discuss this matter without imputing to him any blame whatsoever, and we can say that the very high standard with regard to this question which exists in this House has been distinctly raised by him. Now I do not think that any one who has listened to this debate can doubt that hon. Members who sit opposite did undoubtedly consider, when the debate on this question ended a year ago, that nothing of this kind would be done so recently as the following year after that discussion. Certainly, speaking for my- self, that was my impression and I think it was the impression of a large number of hon. Members on this side of the House. It is not a very large question, the number of Votes is not very great and it does not perhaps come to much but I do think it would be a pity that we should let there be any feeling on the other side of the House that the whole of our arrangements have not been carried out as they have been during the period of the right hon. Gentleman's leadership and will be carried out hereafter: and I appeal with him to reconsider this question and adopt his own suggestion, which would meet the case, and refer the whole of this matter to a Committee.

MR. A. J BALFOUR

was understood to dissent.

* Mr. SEELY

I understood that that was his proposal last year. I do not think it is necessary to go as far as the Leader of the Opposition suggested and withdraw the Vote, because the questions involved are so small that really there will be no harm done this year by putting it in the the form proposed. If, however, it is referred to a Committee, the principle of the matter will be settled and done with, and if the First Lord of the Treasury could see his way to do that, I think he would please both sides of the House.

(7.15.) Mr. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

This is the most extraordinary debate to which during my ten years experience of the House I have listened. A subject has been suddenly sprung upon us, every one admits it is rather a grave emergency, but not a single Member in any part of the House has supported the proposal made by the First Lord of the Treasury. There have been as many speakers on the Government as on the Opposition side of the House, and all have made the same appeal. If the First Lord gives an intimation that he will listen to that appeal, I will not say another word. It seems to me that we are engaged in one of the most serious pieces of business we have had in the House for many years. Two things have happened since this matter of Supply was dealt with about six years ago. In the first place, the expenditure of the country has doubled, and in the second place, a constantly growing amount of the expenditure has been withdrawn from the control of this House. The First Lord has suggested that the Committee of Supply has never effected any economy when dealing with the Estimates. If he will only refer to last session, I think he will find many examples in which the discussions in this House bore fruit. My object in rising was to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of deferring to the opinion which has been expressed in every part of the House, and I hope he will respond to that appeal.

(7.18.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have listened with a certain amount of pain to some of the speeches which have been made. I think expressions used last year, in regard to what was at that time undoubtedly purely an emergency resolution, have been twisted into a sense which, under the circumstances, is hardly fair. Of course, I may speak only by the leave of the House. I admit that by an accident, for which I certainly do not feel myself to be responsible, the change in the form of the Estimates this year has been unexpected or unforeseen by a large number of Gentlemen in the House. I had intended, in the course of my general speech on the rules, to advert to this as one of the features in the changes we proposed to make. I had it on my notes, but unfortunately it slipped my notice, as does sometimes happen in the course of a very long and complicated statement. Then, I had intended to give notice of the matter on Friday week. By the doctor's orders I was not allowed to be in the House that night, and I asked my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury to do so for me. There is no person more competent to do anything lucidly, but possibly if I had done it myself it would have been reported in the newspapers and so have come to the notice of every hon. Member, at all events, not later than last Saturday week. I did not know until this afternoon that it was not reported. Although what passed is perfectly well known to the Leader of the Irish Party, he is not responsible for spreading information throughout all the ranks of the House, but such a statement can hardly be described as a parliamentary secret. Still, it is no doubt true that it would have been desirable to bring the matter more clearly before the notice of the House, so that the House would have been seised of the facts—as, until to-night, I thought they were—ten days ago. Then if there had been any desire for a debate, that desire would have been conveyed to me, and, of course, such a demand would not have been resisted. I do not know whether the House thinks the discussion we have already had sufficiently long, but I am so anxious that it should not appear as if it was being pushed down the throats of Members, or brought into force by any secret procedure, that I am perfectly ready to find some other occasion on which we can discuss what the Government propose as a permanent change in our method of presenting Supplementary Estimates. This is quite deliberately proposed by the Government as an improvement. After what has taken place to-day I will consider whether I might not move an Amendment to the new rules, which would raise the question in a specific form. I cannot promise to do that, because one must consider how it could be drafted, and there are other questions on which it is difficult to pronounce without careful consideration. If I am unable to find a sufficient opportunity in that way, I will try to find one in some other way. Of course, that is if there is a desire for further discussion. I have very little more to say on the matter myself; I do not think I can add anything to the strong statement of the case in its favour; but, in order to avoid the smallest appearance of taking the House by surprise, I will engage that some opportunity is given for a discussion on the matter.

(7.23.) MR. JOHN REDMOND

By permission of the House, may I say a word or two? In substance the right hon. Gentleman has dealt very fairly with the complaint that was made. He has undertaken that before this practice is regarded as approved by the House of Commons, and becomes a part of its permanent un- written laws, there should bean adequate opportunity for its discussion. I take it for granted that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw this Estimate. ["No"] The right hon. Gentleman has said that he does not think he ought to take advantage of this new form until it has been discussed by the House. I would ask him to consider this point. The right hon. Gentleman has made a concession, which is the substance, and he will not lose anything by adding a little grace to it by withdrawing the Estimate in its present form and introducing it in the regular way. The Estimate itself is not, as it was last year, a question of millions, or covering a great many Departments. It is, by comparison with last year, a small one, and it is one which cannot be made the subject of very prolonged or improper discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has promised a day for the discussion, but we may not be able to have the discussion before the Estimate is considered, because that will have to be discussed very soon. If the right hon. Gentleman simply says, "I will give an opportunity for the discussion of this matter, but I will insist on going on with the Estimate, and take advantage of what I have done," his concession will certainly be robbed of its grace. I would ask him, under these circumstances, not only to give us this opportunity for discussion, but to withdraw the present Estimate, and introduce one in the ordinary way.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think it is possible we might have the discussion before the Estimate comes on for consideration. That, obviously, would be the best plan. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask me a question on the subject tomorrow, and I will consider between now and then the course we ought to adopt. Of course, I should take it for granted—I may speak quite frankly—that if the Estimate in its present form were withdrawn, there would be no attempt to prolong the discussion on the Estimate, or anything of that sort.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

I have already said that from the nature of the Estimate itself no such difficulty could possibly arise. I may add to that that there would be no such desire if the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Estimate. I will leave the matter as it now stands and put a question, to the right hon. Gentleman tomorrow.

* Mr. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member desire to withdraw his Motion?

MR. JOHN REDMOND

Yes, Sir, I desire, by leave of the House, to withdraw.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.