*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)Can the Government explain to the House the contradiction between the various statements made yesterday as to the order of business to-day? I understood that the Army Estimates would be taken first.
§ SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington)was understood to reply that the original statement made by the Leader of the House was that he hoped to get Vote 1 of the Navy and the non-effective Votes, and that to-day would be devoted to the reports of those Votes. The Army and Navy Votes were to be taken at the afternoon sitting. But in consequence of the length of the debate on Vote 1 of the Navy, it was agreed to postpone the report of that Vote till Monday next. In those circumstances it was hoped that the Non-effective Votes, 13, 14 and 15, of the Navy might be taken at an early period that afternoon, and that the rest of the time might be given for the report of the Army Votes A and 1. The first order on the Paper was the report of the Excess Vote taken yesterday.
§ MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)said that nothing was said in the statement of the First Lord on Monday about getting the Non-effective Votes to-day. It. was not part of the understanding.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said it would be very inconvenient to take the non-effective Votes before the general discussion of the Navy Estimates was finished. He would certainly oppose with all his might the report of the Excess Vote, since the House had not yet had the report of the Accounts Committee.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)asked whether there was any necessity for obtaining these Non-effective Votes before the close of the financial year.
§ SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD, the greater part of whose answer was inaudible in the Gallery, was understood to say that it would be an advantage to the House to get these Votes.
§ MR. BUCHANANBut am I not right in saying that the arrangement made by the First Lord of the Treasury did not include the taking of the Non-effective Votes?
§ GENERAL LAURIE (Pembroke and Haverfordwest)I certainly understood: the Secretary to the Navy to promise on the previous day that if the Vote were allowed to be taken a full discussion might again take place on report. Many Members accordingly reserved their remarks for the later stage.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)It is impossible I should have given such an undertaking. I had no power to do so. What I did say was, that there could be a discussion on Vote 1 in continuation of that on Vote A, and that there would be a further opportunity of discussing Vote I when the Report stage came on.
§ GENERAL LAURIESpeaking as one of the Members interested, I must say I was misled.
*THE SPEAKERI have nothing to do with these understandings or misunderstandings. The Rules of the House on the matter are perfectly clear.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said he understood that the first business to be taken on the Vote on Account on Thursday would, at the desire of the Government, be that of the Colonial Office, in order to enable the Colonial Secretary to make a statement. What other business, he asked, would be taken?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, N.)I can answer the 1108 hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood the situation. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister stated that the Vote on Account would be put down for Thursday, and that the arrangement of the items in that Vote would depend entirely upon any expression of opinion conveyed to him from any quarter of the House. It being understood that there was a general desire that the Colonial Vote should be put down, that has accordingly been put in the first place; but it is not at the suggestion, request, or desire of the Government, who are in this matter absolutely impartial and perfectly ready to take the discussion of any other item of the Vote on Account if the House so desires. The hon. Gentleman introduced another point. He assumes that this Vote has been put down in order that I, as Colonial Secretary, may make a statement. I wish to say at once that I have no intention of making any statement whatever. My recent proceedings have been fully before the public and the House. I am, of course, ready to give any further explanation which may be desired, or to extend in any way the information which is already in the possession of the House. But I have of my own motion no statement whatever to make.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONI thought it was the desire of the right hon. Gentleman himself to make a statement. Of course, as he says not, I at once accept his contradiction.
*MR. BUCHANANI should like to put a question to the Prime Minister on this subject. There is clearly a misunderstanding. I understood that on Monday the Prime Minister stated that he wanted on Tuesday afternoon Votes A and 1 for the Navy. These were obtained. Then he said that Wednesday would be devoted to the discussion on the Reports of the Army and Navy Votes. Does not the arrangement to take Non-effective Votes in Committee of Supply go outside that understanding?
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)I think the 1109 hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I mentioned the non-effective Votes. We must have the Non-effective Votes. What I was chiefly interested in on Monday was to explain to the House the general method of allocating business before the end of the financial year; and, though I mentioned the Non-effective Votes, they were the least important part of the programme laid before the House.
§ MR. LOUGHIs there any necessity for these Non-effective Votes being taken before the close of the financial year?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWe must have the money. I ought perhaps to give notice now that it will be necessary tomorrow, after the Vote on Account, to take the purely formal stage, which is necessary before we bring in the Appropriation Bill. There are two stages—the Committee stage and the Report stage of Ways and Means—before we introduce the Appropriation Bill. The first must be taken to-morrow. Therefore, when the House meets, I shall move a Resolution enabling us to take that purely formal stage.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThere is no statutory obligation to get these particular Votes, but there is a statutory obligation to finish the financial business before March 25th. It is necessary, however, that we should have this money, and I would point out that if we do not we shall have to bring in another Ways and Means Bill at a time when we are pressed with the legislative work of the session.