§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ (11.0.) MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)objected to the form of the Bill. It was, he contended, an entirely new departure, and the House ought to take care that the proper forms were duly observed. The Bill was drawn on a wrong principle. For this unusual Appropriation Bill as much as possible of the old Appropriation Bills had been taken; from the title-page to the schedule it appeared to be distinctly out of order. He hoped that the Committee stage would not be rushed through, so that there would be ample time to discuss the drafting of the measure.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)said that it was a matter of regret that the right hon. gentleman principally concerned in this Bill was not present to answer the questions which might properly be raised respecting the administration of his Department. The Colonial Secretary was in the House when the Bill was called on, and he immediately left when the discussion began. He protested against this continual practice of the right hon. Gentleman, who, when Members who did not exactly suit his political attitude got up to discuss Colonial affairs, showed his courtesy to the House and to hon. Members by leaving the Chamber. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] It was not a question of no; it was a question of fact. In the absence of the Colonial Secretary he would confine his remarks to points with which the Chancellor of 576 the Exchequer would be able to deal. He congratulated the Government on having secured, in connection with the Bill, an unanimous Vote for money for South Africa. That was a new departure, and he hoped it was an indication that in the future South Africa would be treated less as a Party matter, and more as one affecting the Empire at large. He desired to join in the protest of his hon. friend against the character and form of the Bill. As it stood, the Auditor General and the Treasury authorities would not be able to exercise proper control over the money. The Bill by which they would be governed, provided that £8,000,000 should be granted for necessities following upon the war in South Africa. Why was there no schedule in this Bill as in the Appropriation Act passed early in the year, in which the sums were set out in their particular class, and the purposes for which they were passed in Committee named? He also asked for some indication as to the time when the House could be informed exactly as to their responsibility in regard to the expenditure in South Africa. Might the expect a complete statement before the return of the Colonial Secretary?
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)admitted that it was very difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply to questions of detail with regard to the Vote, and, therefore, he thought they might fairly regret that the Colonial Secretary was absent. He wished to ask a question as to the receipts given by the Boer Government for forage and animals to their own people. Was an engagement made by the terms of peace that those receipts would be recognised by the British Government? He was given to understand that in a great many cases these receipts had been destroyed by the English commanders. In such cases, would secondary evidence be allowed which would show that the Boer Government had given these receipts and had received a quid pro quo? A further point was that a large amount had been paid by the Colonial Office to the War Office for cattle distributed by them. As a great number of animals were taken from the Boers themselves 577 and therefore cost nothing, he wished to know whether payment had been made for them, and whether they were put down as having cost something.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER, Fulham)said that complaint had been made of the form in which the Appropriation Bill had been brought before the House. No doubt this was a somewhat unusual and exceptional Bill, but on examination it would be found that it followed the general lines of Appropriation Bills, and that all the information usually given was given in it. The Vote in Committee of Supply consisted of a single Resolution, and then, for the better information of the House, a good many items were given, which were discussed in Committee. But it was the Vote that was resolved upon—not the items—that was put in the Appropriation Bill. That course had been followed in the present Bill. He saw no advantage in having a schedule of the various items. In the Vote for Colonial Services this session, the original Estimates included many different grants in aid of Colonial services—about twenty sub-heads—and a supplementary grant in aid of £220,000 for the West India sugar Colonies, but they were all lumped together in the Appropriation Bill. There would be no difficulty in the Controller and Auditor General following out the whole of the expenditure. As to when the House would know the full amount of the country's responsibility for this money, no exact time could be named, but the Colonial Office had said that there was not likely to be any unexpended balance.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid the hon. Member had not appreciated the point of his question. What he wanted to know was when there would be a full statement with regard, not only to this, but to the other expenditure in South Africa.
§ MR. HAYES FISHERsaid that was a much wider question, and he doubted whether anyone could answer it.