HC Deb 25 May 1903 vol 122 cc1648-50
MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the determination of His Majesty's Ministers to spend public money in connection with the Brussels Sugar Convention without the sanction of Parliament.

MR. SPEAKER

I do not think I can accept that Motion, because, as I understand, a Bill is already down upon that subject, and the matter can come on for discussion then.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

With submission, I do not understand that that Bill has anything whatever to do with that expenditure. I understood the Prime Minister to say that the Bill was not required at all for the purpose of the expenditure. The point we wish to press is the right of Government to spend money without the sanction of Parliament.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

May I remind you, Sir, that the Government has already announced that the Bill with regard to the Convention will not be introduced in Committee of the House, and, therefore, will not presumably authorise the expenditure of public money?

MR. SPEAKER

Nobody knows better than the hon. Member that Bills authorising the expenditure of money are constantly introduced in the ordinary way, and that it is only when their main object is expenditure that they must be introduced in Committee. As regards the other point, it seems to me that the Convention which is to be carried out by the Bill is the cause of the expenditure. It necessitates organisation, travelling expenses, and other matters.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I understood the Prime Minister to say it was proposed to spend the money before introducing the Bill. Surely it is open to the Opposition to contest the right of the Government to spend money without the sanction of Parliament merely on a promise to carry through a Bill.

MR. LOUGH

The Convention is to meet on the 1st of June and the Prime Minister said the Bill would not be introduced before that date.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I said just the contrary.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

asked whether a Resolution passed last year could be taken under the rules of the House as authorising this expenditure of public money.

MR. SPEAKER

That is not a matter which arises on this Motion. In fact, I do not know to what Resolution the hon. Member refers.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

It is not on the Order-book.

MR. SPEAKER

Notice has been given to the House by the Government. [Several HON. MEMBERS: No!]

MR. BUCHANAN

Can we be prevented from discussing this Motion because of a mere verbal promise to introduce a Bill dealing with a subject not yet on the Order-book?

MR. SPEAKER

Although my statement has been contradicted I may point out that notice of a Bill to enable the Government to carry into effect the Convention is on the Order-book, and has been there many weeks.

MR. BRYCE

We have heard from the Prime Minister that the ground on which the Treasury consider that they are authorised in entailing this expenditure is a Resolution passed last session. What my hon. friend desires to discuss is whether the Treasury is right and whether it has the power on a Resolution of last session to take action. That is quite irrespective of the introduction of the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER

I do not understand that to be the point.

MR. BRYCE

Did not the Prime Minister say that the Treasury conceived that they were allowed to spend the money on the strength of the Resolution of last session.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,) Croydon

Yes, Sir. A Resolution has been accepted by the House which puts on the Government the necessity of introducing a Bill to carry out the Convention, and that Bill will be introduced. ["No, no!"]

MR. SPEAKER

I have given my opinion, right or wrong, to the best of my judgment. I have to decide these questions as they appear to me on the spur of the moment. I hold that the proposed Motion is out of order.