HC Deb 16 March 1905 vol 143 cc225-75

Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [15th March], "That, in order to comply with the Law, the proceedings necessary to dispose of any Supplementary Estimates and Vote A and Vote 1 of the Estimates for the Navy, and of the Ways and Means Resolutions consequential thereon, shall, if not previously disposed of, be brought to a conclusion in the manner hereinafter mentioned:—

"At half-past Five of the clock on the 21st day of March next, the Chairman shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Vote then under consideration, and shall then forthwith put the Question that the total amount of the outstanding Votes for the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates be granted for the services defined in those Estimates, and shall also forthwith put every other Question necessary to dispose of those Votes.

"As soon as the Resolutions so disposed of are reported to the House, the House shall forthwith resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means, and the Chairman shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of any Resolutions proposed in that Committee

"At Ten of the clock on the 23rd day of March next, the Speaker shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolution then under consideration, and shall then forthwith put the Question that the House doth agree with the Committee in all Resolutions reported in respect of the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, and shall then put a like Question on the Resolution reported with respect to the Supplementary Estimates for the Army, and on the Resolutions reported with respect to Vote A and Vote 1 of the Estimates for the Navy.

"On the consideration of the Report from the Committee of Ways and Means, the Speaker shall forthwith put the Question that the House do agree with the Committee in the Resolutions reported.

"And that at half-past Eleven of the clock on the 27th day of March next the Speaker shall forthwith put any Question necessary to dispose of the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill; and at Seven of the clock on the 30th day of March next the Speaker shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Third Reading of that Bill.

"And that the proceedings on going into Supply on the Army Estimates, and in Committee, and on Report, of Vote A and Vote 1 of those Estimates shall, if not previously disposed of, be brought to a conclusion in the following manner:—

"At half-past Six of the clock on the 28th day of March next, the Speaker shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair on going into Supply on the Army Estimates.

"At half-past Six of the clock on the 29th day of March next, the Chairman shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of Vote A and Vote 1 of the Army Estimates in Committee.

"At Eleven of the clock on the 30th day of March next, the Speaker shall forth-with put every Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolutions with respect to Vote A and Vote 1 of the Army Estimates.

"Until the Business to which this Order relates is concluded the consideration of the Business of Supply at any Sitting at which Government "Business has precedence shall not be anticipated by a Motion for Adjournment, and no dilatory Motion shall be received on proceedings on that Business, and the Business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order.

"Until the Business to which this Order relates is concluded no Business other than Business of Supply shall be taken at any sitting at which Government Business has precedence."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question again proposed.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

said he rose to move the Amendment standing in his name upon the Paper, but he did not propose to move it in the exact form in which it appeared. He moved to leave out "comply with the law" in order to insert "expedite business." This Amendment really touched the foundation upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister rested his argument for the extraordinary Resolution that the House was now considering. The words he proposed to delete appeared in the foreground of the Resolution, and in his speech the right hon. Gentleman had based his argument on the legal necessity for taking this step. He denied that there was any legal necessity in the sense the right hon. Gentleman stated it to the House. What was the law with regard to the voting of money by March 31st, upon which this Resolution was based? So far as the amounts required for the present year were concerned, the largest and most troublesome items of Supply, the Supplemental Votes for the Army, were now through Committee after a discussion not too prolonged having regard to the amount of the Estimates. A great deal had been said about the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, and from what had been said it might be thought they amounted to millions and were very troublesome to discuss, but as a matter of fact they were less than they had been for years. They had also been partly discussed, and, having regard to the debate that had already taken place, the Somaliland Vote would not have given much trouble, so that there was only £25,000 left to deal with. With regard to the amounts required for the present year, therefore, good progress had been made, and there was, so far as they were concerned, not the slightest necessity for this drastic process. What law with regard to the finances of the coming year compelled this drastic step to be taken before March 31st? It appeared that it was necessary that the Government should be put in funds on April 1st, and that if provision was not made by March 31st the Government would not be in funds. But there was nothing to show that the Government could not be put in funds by that time by the usual procedure under ordinary and normal conditions. If there had been mismanagement of the business of the House, it was quite easy to adopt a simple expedient such as a Vote on Account or some other expedient rather than the drastic procedure proposed by this Resolution.

What had happened? The Army Votes were behind for the reason that everything connected with the Army was in the utmost confusion, but who was to blame for that? Not the Members of that House. They had no control whatever over the matter; there had been no obstruction or nasty questions. They had done everything in their power to expedite business. It was the Government who were in fault; they had kept back the Estimates to a late date, and because the Government had not fulfilled their duty this drastic remedy was said to be necessary to pass the Estimates. Even if some expedient was necessary, he submitted a much more simple one could be found than one which took away the liberties of this House. The right hon. Gentleman had said the law made this procedure absolutely necessary, but he had not defined exactly what law it was that made this particular Resolution necessary. The law ought to be as strong as the Resolution was drastic, and it ought to be urgent. No such case had been made out on the previous day by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said the statute law, the law of tradition, and the law of policy made it necessary. So far as the statute law was concerned no case had been made out, and this proceeding was not justified by the law of tradition because in his speech the right hon. Gentleman admitted that none of his predecessors had adopted an expedient of this kind, which disposed at once of the law of tradition. The tradition of this House was that there should be complete freedom of speech so far as it was possible, and the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, instead of providing for that, swept away all the liberties of the House. The real reason for moving this Resolution was to provide a time-table for the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, so that for the next fourteen days they might eat their food in comfort and come down to take part in a division when required. The law of tradition was clearly against the right hon. Gentleman. What did he mean by the law of policy? Was it his own policy of keeping the Government in power? No doubt these shifts were necessary if the House acknowledged that law, but those who sat in opposition did not recognise that law, and therefore they must ask the right hon. Gentleman to justify his Resolution by the statute law alone. He begged to move.

MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)

said, in venturing to second the Amendment, he desired to proceed with the arguments he was submitting to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on the previous evening. He was well aware that on the previous evening the right hon. Gentleman had stated that money voted for the Navy could be used for Army purposes, and money voted for the Army could be used for the Navy. In his opinion that was undoubtedly a wrong practice, and contrary not only to good government but to the principles of that House; but, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out on the previous evening, it was consistent with long usage and had been specifically legalised by a special Act. But what were the terms of that Act? The transfer of money voted for the Navy to the Army was sanctioned by the Public Accounts and Charges Act of 1892, Section 2, paragraph 1, and it stated— That every sum voted by Parliament may be applied towards making good the Supply so granted. He ventured to draw attention to those words because they had created a doubt not only in his mind but in the minds of persons better able to form an opinion than himself on this matter. It seemed to him that although it was legal to use Naval money for Army purposes, it was not legal under this Act to pay for "Army food" out of "naval pay." If that were true, he would ask the House to consider the position in which they would be placed if they passed this Resolution. By the Consolidated Fund Bill they were going to allocate to the Navy certain money, out of which they could pay the Army provided the Army had obtained a Vote authorising the Treasury to pay it. If his contention were correct, Navy pay could be devoted to Navy food or boots, but not to Army food or boots, so that if this Resolution was passed they would perfectly justified in paying the Army, but it would be grossly illegal to feed or clothe them. That being so, the Resolution must obviously be amended. If the Government accepted the view he had put forward, he submitted that the House could not, without stultifying itself, pass the Resolution as it stood. The case for the Amendment was absolutely overwhelming. If the Prime Minister contended that in spite of the paragraph in the Public Accounts and Charges Act, Navy pay could be used for Army food, all the more necessary was it to eliminate the words objected to, and so free the Army discussion on Vote 1 To take Vote 1 of the Army Estimates without proper discussion would be not only highly undesirable but grossly unconstitutional. The reason full discussion was particularly asked for on the present occasion was that a great change had been proposed in the Army—a change which the Secretary of State himself had said might be compared with that of Mr. Cardwell. But what did Mr. Cardwell and his Government allow in the way of discussion? In that year the Army Estimates were introduced on February 16th, It was now March 16th, and the Army Estimates were still to come. After the Address in that year no less than ten days before March 31st were devoted to the discussion of Army Estimates.


The hon. Member does not appear to be addressing himself to the Question before the House.


said he was trying to show that it had been the universal practice to allow the fullest discussion on the Army Estimates when great changes were proposed. If Mr. Cardwell gave ten full days to the Army Estimates, what was to be said of a Government who without any necessity in law introduced a Resolution curtailing the discussion on the Army to fewer hours than Mr. Cardwell gave days? The Prime Minister apparently refused to say whether the whole thing was illegal. But even if it was not illegal it was wholly unnecessary. If money allocated to the Navy could be used for any purpose in the Army, and if all money going to the Army could be allocated to any purpose, why was it necessary, in order to comply with the law, to take Vote 1? It was necessary to take Vote A in order to lay down the number of men, but Vote 1, on which general questions of policy were generally discussed, need not be taken. The Non-effective Votes for officers and men, amounting to over £3,000,000, would do just as well for the pay of the Army. Why, then, did the Government refuse to adopt a more reasonable procedure? The immemorial practice of the House Was to govern policy by means of Supply. Vote 1, always by far the largest Vote, amounted this year to over £9,000,000, and the House, when once they had passed that Vote, would have parted with more than one-third of their power. In reality, as Parliament was constituted, they would have parted with nearly the whole of their power. It was true the Prime Minister had promised to give an opportunity for full discussion on a subsequent date. He was grateful for the concession, but it would not be the same thing as a discussion on Vote 1. In past years, notably in times of reform, the battle had always raged round Vote 1. If it was wholly unnecessary, in order to comply with the law, that the Government should closure Vote 1, and commit what was almost a Constitutional crime, why did they not frankly abandon the proposal and agree to take the Non-effective Votes? The Government were in this dilemma: either it was possible for the Treasury to allocate to any portion of the Army the money which the House granted to the Navy by the Consolidated Fund Bill—in which case it was unnecessary to take Vote 1, and the words must go—or, in the opinion of Treasury experts, the words would likewise have to go because the Government would be placed in an illegal position by the very fact of doing anything but paying the Army from March 31st onwards until they had passed a new Consolidated Fund Bill. The whole Motion had been conceived in haste, without due consideration of what it would do, or the effect it would have upon the Army Votes or the dignity of the House. He, therefore, appealed to the Prime Minister to reconsider the whole question with a view to finding a way out of the impasse in which they were undoubtedly involved.

Amendment proposed— In lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words 'comply with the Law,' and insert the words 'expedite business.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."


thought these words ought to go, because at the best they were surplusage and really did not mean anything at all. There was no law which compelled the House to do what the Prime Minister wished them to do, while at the worst the words pledged the House to approval of a practice of which it ought not to approve. He did not think the dilemma referred to by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight existed, because he had no doubt at all as to the perfect legality of the course the Government proposed to take. The Public Accounts and Charges Act had this effect, that money granted by the Consolidated Fund Act for the Army might, in certain circumstances, be appropriated to Navy purposes. The House seemed to have forgotten that for six weeks last year the Army and Navy were being paid for with money originally voted for Civil Service purposes. The dodge was to take a large Vote for the Civil Service, and the Government actually took twenty-three months Supply for that service. Because they could not get so much for the Army and Navy, and in order to avoid a second Consolidated Fund Bill, they paid the Army and Navy out of money voted for Civil Service purposes. Money sanctioned by vote of the House could only be paid by the Treasury after it formed part of the Consolidated Fund. That was the Question the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked, and he said "Yes." But he was wrong. Once a grant had been made by the Consolidated Fund Act No.1, the whole of the fund thus created was available for any Vote of Supply carried on Report by the House. Therefore Army money might be applied to Civil Service purposes, because the money was thrown into one common pool, and it could be used for any Votes the House had granted either before or after the passing of the Act. The Public Accounts Committee had condemned this practice, and consequently the Secretary of State for War made a complete change in the form of the Supplementary Estimates to carry out the principle laid down by the Public Accounts Committee. Why should the Government ask the House to sanction this tossing of money about between one Vote and another?


Do you say it is wrong?


I do say it is wrong. As regarded the Army and Navy the Government admitted that it was wrong, and now, to suit the exigency of this particular moment, they were asking the House to commit itself to a new practice, which, although covered by the law, was never intended to be a recognised practice. The House never intended to give the Government this power, and he challenged the Prime Minister to give them a single case in which the Government of the day had deliberately done what he was now proposing to do now. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to produce a single instance in which a Government deliberately took money granted for one purpose and used it for a totally different purpose.


said he thought it would be most convenient to the House if he dealt with this question at, once. He had listened to the speeches, and especially to the last speech, which had been delivered in favour of the Amendment with some surprise. If he rightly understood the principles laid down by the hon. Member for Dundee—which he could not believe had the enthusiastic sanction of hon. Members opposite—they had been violated, not by this Government alone, but by every Government. In this respect there was nothing suggested by the procedure of this year which was not in absolute harmony with our financial traditions. The Government did not want to change the principle of the financial practice or even to modify it. It was because they wanted to preserve it unmodified that this Resolution had become necessary. There was really no obscurity as to the course they were taking or the course which had been habitually taken by their predecessors in obedience to the law. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment admitted that, so far as the Supplementary Estimates were concerned, the law must take its course. Where, in the hon. Member's opinion, the law did not step in was in connection with the finance of the year to come. He did not accept that statement, but even if he did it would not justify the Amendment, because the word "law" had to come in in regard to the finance of the expiring year. If the House did not pass this Resolution, it would be absolutely impossible by any tolerable means to introduce the Consolidated Fund Bill on Thursday, March 23rd, and if they did not do that the Government would not be able to pass that Bill in time to fulfil their obligations. Therefore, on that account, it was necessary that the word "law" should stand.


Why is the 23rd necessary?


said they had to bring in the Consolidated Fund Bill on the 23rd because they could not read the two stages of a money Bill on the same day. The 24th of March was a private Members' day, and on Monday, the 27th of March, they would take the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill; on Tuesday, March 28th, the Committee stage of the same Bill; March 29th, Vote A and Vote 1 of the Army Estimates in Committee; and on Thursday, the 30th of March, they could take the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. He was aware that this date was so late that it would throw a strain upon the office which had to deal with the matter, and he hoped it would not be dragged in as a precedent. Therefore the word "law" was justified and appropriate and ought to be retained. He now came to what was, perhaps, more important, and that was the necessity of dealing in addition with the Supply included in and excluded by the Consolidated Fund Bill, that was to say, the question of Vote A and Vote 1 of the Army Estimates. The hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think that never before this flagitious Government came into office was it usual to use money Voted in the Consolidated Fund Bill for the general purposes of any class which had not been voted. Of course, that was not the case. They must have means of getting money out of the till at the beginning of the next year before they got on with Supply, in order to carry on the work of the country. How was that money to be spent on the Army unless Vote A was passed? Therefore, they must have Vote A.


It is only done in a dissolution session.


Yes, it is done in a dissolution session. Therefore, obviously, it is appropriate now. He was pleased to see that there was no quarrel as to the legality of the course the Government were pursuing. The Consolidated Fund Bill gave them the money, they put the money in the till, but they could not spend it on the ser- vices until they got a Vote in Committee.


Can you spend money voted for Navy pay on Army food?


said they could not do so, but they could spend money voted by the Consolidated Fund Bill on the Army or the Navy if they got a Vote in Committee.

MR. McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

said he agreed that they might spend the money out of the Consolidated Fund upon the Army Votes which had been voted, but he wished to point out that under this Resolution they would vote the Army pay but not any other Army Vote, and consequently, although they would be able to pay the Army they would not be able to feed and clothe them.


said the hon. Gentleman must know that it was not only legal but necessary, and not only commonly done, but invariably done.


Never! Would the right hon. Gentleman allow him to explain what was commonly done under the Appropriation Act? When money had been included under the Consolidated Fund Act that money might be used for any other Vote in connection with the Army, but in this case the money had not been voted, and they could only use the money which had been voted.


said the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong, and he would not get a single Gentleman on the front Opposition Bench to say that he was right. The money was put into a general till by the Consolidated Fund Act, and they could not put into that till more than a certain amount, the total amount, being determined by the Votes taken. When they had got the money in the till they could take it out for any purpose the House had authorised or voted in Supply.


We have not authorised it.


said they were going to authorise it by passing Votes A and 1. The hon. Gentleman opposite would not get a single authority in or out of the House to accept the view he had stated. Hon. Members seemed to hold that although money had been got by the Consolidated Fund Bill, and although money had been voted for Army purposes by Vote 1, they could not use it for any other purpose except Vote 1. That was an error. Not a single Gentleman on the Opposition side of the House who was acquainted with the financial business of the House would accept that view. He had endeavoured to deal with the Amendment, and he ventured to suggest that the House might now divide upon it.


said he spoke with the greatest deference on this point, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had fallen into a mistake. They included in the Consolidated Fund Act year by year Votes A and 1 of the Army Votes, and having got them in that Act they could then use the monies so supplied for purposes of the other Votes for the Army. It must be remembered that the money had first to be included in the Consolidated Fund Act. In this case the Army money was not included in the Consolidated Fund Act.


said the Consolidated Fund Act did not appropriate at all. It was a perfectly neutral Act, and as long as they had got the money there, all they required was the right to take it out.


said he was dealing with the Appropriation Act of 1874, which was renewed every year. Once the money had been included in the Consolidated Fund Act, for any service, that money might be used for any particular Vote. In this case Army Vote 1 had not been included in the Consolidated Fund Act, and the right hon. Gentleman had to go back on the Public Charges and Accounts Act of 1891. Under that Act he was enabled to use any money included in the Consolidated Fund Act for any purpose which had been voted, but the purpose must be voted. The Public Charges and Accounts Act was clear on that point. What the right hon. Gentleman was now endeavouring to do was this: He wanted to throw the Appropriation Act and the Public Charges and Accounts Act into a hotch-potch, and to say that the money which was now being properly devoted to Army pay could be used for any other Vote. He was not justified in doing that. Having got his money for Army pay it could not be used for the purpose of any other Vote unless he got it through the Consolidated Fund Act. Army pay was not included in that Act. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was no one on the front Opposition Bench who would challenge his interpretation of the law. He was perfectly certain that any right hon. Gentleman on his side of the House who gave attention to the matter would be bound to come to the same conclusion as he had come to, namely, that the First Lord of the Treasury, under the proposal which he now asked the House to carry, would be enabled to pay the Army, but not to feed and clothe it. That was the first point. His hon. friend had put the second point. Why not take other Votes which were not controversial? He was sure the right hon. Gentleman meant to deal fairly with the House. He had stated over and over again that he did not wish to avoid discussion on the Army, but was it equally true that those who advised him on behalf of the War Office were as anxious to have discussion as he was? He said he was going to give a day for the discussion of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman was now admittedly withdrawing from discussion by the Committee of the House Vote 1, and preventing the House from coming to a judgment in detail upon every point open to criticism in the new Army scheme as it arose in Committee. It was not sufficient to tell the House that a day would be given thereafter for a single debate. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with the House now, either to drop the provision relating to the Army altogether, or if he still thought it necessary to take out Vote 1 and insert Votes 14 and 15.

MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)

said this was a very technical discussion, and, he thought, a very instructive one. He would like to say how it struck him. The Prime Minister's Resolution was prefaced with the words, "In order to comply with the law." Strictly speaking, there was no law at all. There was nothing but usage that regulated this matter. The case as regarded the law was that they could not pay for any public service until they had a Vote in Supply. Then they had a Vote in Committee of Ways and Means, and then the Consolidated Fund Act, which authorised the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the money originally voted in Committee of Supply. They could not pay away a halfpenny of public funds until that process had been gone through. It was perfectly true, as the First Lord of the Treasury had said, that in the first Consolidated Fund Act of the session there was no appropriation. All that Act did as regarded the coming year was to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of a fixed amount, and, according to almost invariable practice, that amount included the Vote on account for the Civil Service, Vote 1 for the Navy, and Vote 1 (pay) for the Army. He did not believe there was a single instance in which the first Consolidated Fund Act of the session had not included a sum voted for the Army. In 1889 a Consolidated Fund Act was passed on March 29th, and a second Consolidated Fund Act was passed on April 1st. The reason was that the Army Vote had not been prepared in time for the Consolidated Fund Act, which had to be passed before March 31st, and so punctilious were the Conservative Government of that day that they actually went to the trouble of passing a second Consolidated Fund Act two days later in order to provide for the pay of the Army. The customary practice of Parliament in relation to this matter was not being followed, but was being violated.

*MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)

said he would like to point out another difficulty the right hon. Gentleman would get into if he retained the words proposed to be omitted. What was really the practice and intention of Parliament with regard to the Consolidated Fund? They required first of all to get the Votes in Supply. These must be reported to the House. After that there was Committee of Ways and Means and then they got the Consolidated Fund Act. If the right hon. Gentleman retained these words he must insert Votes A and 1 of the Army as well. The right hon. Gentleman was proposing to omit the Army Votes from two stages—the Ways and Means stage and the Consolidated Act. Sub-section 1 of Clause 2 of the Act of 1891, showed that the intention of Parliament was that the Army Vote, or whatever the purposes might be for which money was to be granted, must be in the Consolidated Fund Bill No. 1. That was not so in the present case, and even if he were incorrect in regard to the law of the matter he thought there could be no question as to the intention of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to conform to the law, he must add to the Navy Estimates the Army Estimates. The safer course for the right hon. Gentleman would be to drop the words proposed to be left out.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

said he did not agree with the suggestion that the words "in order to comply with the law" were not important. After all, this was the sole justification the Prime Minister had put forward for the Resolution, It turned out that not only did this not enable him to comply with the law but he would actually be breaking the law in regard to the Army Estimates. It was well that this should be emphasised again. Every year up to the present, as he understood, Vote 1 of the Army Estimates had been included in the Consolidated Fund Bill, which was carried before March 31st. That enabled the Treasury to use money which had been allocated by the House of Commons for pay for any other purpose connected with the Army. The Government for the first time were departing from that precedent. They were not going to insert the Army Vote in the Consolidated Fund Bill. What was the situation? If Vote 1for the Army were not included the Government would be breaking the law if they used money for the Army. The Resolution was not to enable the Government to comply with the law, but to break it. If the Government expended a penny of the money voted under this Motion they would be breaking the law. It was perfectly clear that the Prime Minister had not adequately considered the matter, or the difference between the Act of 1874 and the Public Accounts Act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury ought to explain the matter. The House was entitled to an explanation. Last, session the Government used the Vote on Account for the Civil Service for the purposes of the Army. That was breaking the law. Now they posed under a different attitude. Last year they were a defaulting authority; this year they posed as law-abiding citizens. Their object this year was the same as last year; it was to avoid discussion on the Army. He would ask the Attorney-General whether, unless Vote 1 were included in the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Government would be entitled to use the money for the purposes of the Army.


said that there was no difficulty whatever about the matter. All the anxiety displayed by hon. Gentlemen proceeded from a mistaken idea that the Consolidated Fund Bill was an Appropriation Bill. The Consolidated Fund Bill was a Bill for granting certain sums for Supply; and the sums so granted might be applied to any purpose for which the House of Commons granted them. For the purpose of passing the Consolidated Fund Act it had always been usual to have Votes passed through all their stages, amounting in the aggregate to the sum given under the Act.


said that the whole point was whether the grant included Ways and Means.


said he thought the hon. Gentleman was confusing the matter, if he would allow him to say so. A certain sum was authorised for Supply generally but net for any particular heads of Supply. No one disputed that in order to comply with the law the Supplementary Estimates should be passed by March 31st; and that, according to immemorial practice, before the House passed the Consolidated Fund Bill they should get Votes through all their stages equal to the amount in the Bill. But the money was not appropriated to any particular purpose at all; and might be applied to any purpose. All that was required for the purpose of making perfectly lawful the application of money to the Army was that Army Votes A and I should be passed. The amount in the Act was not appropriated in any way; and might be applied to the Civil Service, the Army, or the Navy. There would, of course, be an opportunity for the fullest discussion in regard to the Army as had been promised by the Prime Minister.


asked why it was necessary to include any Army Vote at all before March 31st.


said the reason was that otherwise there would be no authority for the application to the Army of any part of the sum authorised by the Consolidated Fund Act. A Vote in the House formed the preamble to the Consolidated Fund Bill. He could not really accept the suggestion that the intention of the Government was to avoid discussion on the Army. It was nothing of the kind. The Prime Minister had promised an ample opportunity. The Consolidated Fund Bill was not an Appropriation Bill, and the money authorised by it could be applied to any Supply purpose.

MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)

said he thought that the Prime Minister now realised that it would be better if the words objected to were omitted. It had been acknowledged that the course adopted by the Government was most unusual and absolutely without precedent. It had been the invariable practice to include in the Consolidated Fund No.1 Bill an aggregate sum for the Civil Service, the Navy, end the Army; and this was the first attempt to depart from it. The present proposal was that after the Consolidated Fund Bill had been passed through all its stages the House should be asked to pass two most important Army Votes. That was a highly irregular proceeding. The Prime Minister stated that he did not wish to hinder or restrict the opportunities of hon. Gentlemen for the discussion of the Army Estimates; but according to constitutional practice the best opportunity the House could have was on Vote 1. Why should they not agree to a short discussion on this Motion, and avoid the feeling of resentment that would be likely to arise from it; and include instead of Vote 1, Votes 14 and 15, which would give the Prime Minister something over £3,000,000 with which he could carry on the Army after April 1st. If that course were adopted it would meet with the general wishes of the House, would facilitate the progress of the Resolution, and enable the right hon. Gentleman to fulfil the promise he had made to the House, that it should not be deprived, in any degree, of an opportunity of fully discussing the new Army scheme.


said he desired to support the Amendment, and also the request which his hon. friend had addressed to the Prime Minister. The subject was a very difficult one; and he was not surprised that the Government had got into difficulties in connection with it. It was perfectly clear that the Government were on the horns of a dilemma. The arguments which had been advanced from the Treasury Bench were mutally destructive. What were the two conflicting propositions? His hon. friend the Member for North Monmouthshire, in a singularly clear and lucid speech, showed what the law on the subject was. The Prime Minister in his speech showed what the practice was; and it was quite clear that the practice was at complete, or, at any rate, considerable variance, with the strict letter of the law. If that were so the main, in fact the sole, contention of the Prime Minister for this revolutionary procedure fell to the ground. The Prime Minister said that the law had not been broken, and no doubt he had a large array of legal opinion behind him in support of that contention. Well, assuming that the Prime Minister was correct, and that the law had not been broken. Why? Because when money was voted under the Consolidated Fund Bill it passed into the national till, and might be handed out according to the Votes apportioned in the House. It did not matter by what Vote money was passed into the national till. It was not necessary to fill the till by means of Vote 1. The Government might take a smaller Vote, which, though it might not give the Government so much to go on with, would give sufficient, and it would preserve for the House of Commons a greater measure of control. Apart from that, however, Vote 1 was a more convenient Vote on which to discuss the Army scheme than the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should meet the Opposition by taking Votes 14 and 15 or Vote 7 instead of Vote 1, with which, in present circumstances, the House did not wish to part on account of its convenience as a basis for the general discussion they desired.


said if the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to tender advice, which was absolutely disinterested, although the right hon. Gentleman might not think so, he would appeal to him to accede to the request of hon. Members interested in Army questions, and who were desirous not to part with Vote 1 until that full discussion which every hon. Member desired had taken place. It had been the habit for many years to take the discussion on general Army topics on Vote 1, although it was sometimes taken on the number of men, and, by agreement afterwards, if the debate was not exhausted, it might be arranged that there should be a discussion on some other Vote. But this was not a case of that kind. The matters to be dealt with on this occasion were so serious that the whole question could not be discussed with satisfaction to the House upon any Vote except Vote 1. There was something inspiriting in discussing a great question like the condition of the Army on Vote 1, which was the pay of the men of the Army. It made a more satisfactory, more real, impression upon the House than would be made if such a discussion was entered into with the knowledge that this Vote was passed and gone altogether from the control of the House. If this discussion were put upon some small Vote it would be reduced to the limits of a purely academic discussion which would not have the same reality that it would have if it had taken place on Vote 1. this feeling was a reasonable one. What reason was there why Votes 14 and 15 should not be substituted for Vote 1, which could be left for the great battle to which they were all looking forward.


said they were all glad to see the right hon. Gentleman back. His appeal did not appear to be relevant to the Amendment before the House, which challenged the accuracy of the Government's view of the law. If the House would consent to part with that Amendment, the Government would discuss the other point as to the way in which money was to be obtained for the Army. He did not wish to throw out hopes that he would yield on that point, which he had not had time to consider.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

submitted that what the Prime Minister had said was a complete justification for the Amendment, for he had promised further consideration as to whether it was necessary in order to comply with the law that Vote 1 should be taken.


said he was perfectly certain it was not necessary in order to comply with the law that Vote 1 should be taken. The general object of the Resolution was to enable the law to be carried out, and that was the purpose expressed in the words to which objection was taken.


suggested that the words "comply with the law" governed each and every item of the succeeding clauses.




The right hon. Gentleman now practically admits that the words are not strictly true.


On the contrary, I have made two speeches to show that they are absolutely justified.


contended that if the substitution of Votes 14 and 15 of the Army Estimates for Vote 1 in the Resolution would equally comply with the law, his hon. friend had proved his case and the words were unnecessary. Why did the right hon. Gentleman persist in wasting time by refusing to withdraw words which were incorrect and not essential to the Motion. The words were really a part of the right hon. Gentleman's introductory speech, and were inserted to put the Motion on the high plane of compliance with the law, whereas the debate had shown that it could claim no such justification. The Prime Minister had not been able to quote the law which required to be thus complied with, and yet he would not withdraw these words and allow the House to get to the really operative part of the Motion. The Attorney-General would doubtless agree that what he (the hon. Member) had said was quite correct.


No, I do not.


asked whether the Attorney-General did not admit that the substitution of Votes 14 and 15 would meet the requirements without taking Vote 1. (After a pause)—The hon. and learned Gentleman did not deny it. It obviously followed that the words were pure surplusage, and he protested against the House being forced solemnly to register something not strictly true.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 242; Noes, 185. (Division List No. 56).

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bailey, James (Walworth) Bartley, Sir George C. T.
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Bain, Colonel James Robert Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin
Allsopp, Hon. George Baird, John George Alexander Beckett, Ernest William
Anson, Sir William Reynell Balcarres, Lord Bentinck, Lord Henry C.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Baldwin, Alfred Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.
Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. H. O. Balfour,Rt Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Bignold, Sir Arthur
Arrol, Sir William Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Bigwood, James
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.) Bill, Charles
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon.Sir H. Banbury, Sir F. George Bingham, Lord
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hare, Thomas Leigh Parkes, Ebenezer
Bond, Edward Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th Percy, Earl
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Boulnois, Edmund Hay, Hon. Claude George Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Heath, ArthurHoward (Hanley Pretyman, Ernest George
Burdett-Coutts, W. Heath, Sir J. (Staffords. N. W.) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow Heaton, John Henniker Purvis, Robert
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. Helder, Augustus Pym, C. Guy
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) Randles, John S.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Hickman, Sir Alfred Rankin, Sir James
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Hoare, Sir Samuel Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hobhouse, Rt Hn H. (Somers't, E Ratcliff, R. F.
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc. Hogg, Lindsay Reid, James (Greenock)
Chapman, Edward Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Remnant, James Farquharson
Clive, Captain Percy A. Horner, Frederick William Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Coates, Edward Feetham Hoult, Joseph Renwick, George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Houston, Robert Paterson Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hozier.Hon. JamesHenry Cecil Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Cook, Sir Frederick-Lucas Hudson, George Bickersteth Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Corbett, T. L. (Down, Hunt, Rowland Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Round, Rt. Hon. James
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hon. Col. W. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Kerr, John Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Kimber, Sir Henry Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Dalkeith, Earl of King, Sir Henry Seymour Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm. Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Davenport, William Bromley Laurie, Lieut.-General Sharpe, William Edward T.
Denny, Colonel Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dickson, Charles Scott Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Dimsdale, Rt Hon. Sir Joaeph C. Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Sloan, Thomas Henry
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lawson, Hn H. L. W, (Mile End. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks. N. R) Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks
Doughty, Sir George Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Douglas, Rt Hon. A. Akers Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead) Spear, John Ward
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Stanley, Rt Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Llewellyn, Evan Henry Stock, James Henry
Fardell, Sir T. George Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stone, Sir Benjamin
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Ferguson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Lonsdale, John Brownlee Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lowe, Francis William Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Finch, Rt Hon. George H. Loyd, Archie Kirkman Thorburn, Sir Walter
Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs) Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Thornton, Percy M.
Fisher, William Hayes Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Fison, Frederick William Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Tritton, Charles Ernest
Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose Macdona, John Cumming Tuff, Charles
Fitzroy, Hon. E. Algernon MacIver, David (Liverpool) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield
Flower, Sir Ernest Maconochie, A. W. Walker, Col. William Hall
Forster, Henry William M'Calmont, Colonel James Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir Wm. H.
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. Majendie, James A. H. Wanklyn, James Leslie
Galloway, William Johnson Malcolm, Ian Warde, Colonel C. E.
Gardner, Ernest Marks, Harry Hananel Webb, Colonel William George
Garfit, William Martin, Richard Biddulph Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n) Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wharton, Rt Hon. John Lloyd
Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets Milner, Rt Hon. Sir Frederick G. Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- Milvain, Thomas Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir John Eldon Mitchell, William (Burnley) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Goschen, Hon. G. Joachim Molesworth, Sir Lewis Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Goulding, Edward Alfred Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Graham, Henry Robert Morpeth, Viscount Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Morrell, George Herbert Wortley, Rt Hon. C. B. Stuart
Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury Morrison, James Archibald Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Grenfell, William Henry Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Wylie, Alexander
Hain, Edward Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Hambro, Charles Eric Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—SIR
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x Nicholson, William Graham Alexander Acland-Hood and
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Viscount Valentia.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Paulton, James Mellor
Ainsworth, John Stirling Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Allen, Charles P. Harmsworth, R. Leicester Pirie, Duncan V.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Harwood, George Priestley, Arthur
Atherley-Jones, L. Hayter, Rt Hon. Sir Arthur D. Rea, Russell
Barlow, John Emmott Helme, Norval Watson Reddy, M.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Hemphill, Rt Hon. Charles H. Rickett, J. Compton
Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Benn, John Williams Higham, John Sharpe Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Black, Alexander William Horniman, Frederick John Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Boland, John Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Robson, William Snowdon
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Jacoby, James Alfred Roche, John
Brigg, John Johnson, John Roe, Sir Thomas
Bright, Allan Heywood Joicey, Sir James Rose, Charles Day
Broadhurst, Henry Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) Runciman, Walter
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Jones, Leif (Appleby) Russell, T. W.
Bryce, Rt Hon. James Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Jordan, Jeremiah Schwann, Charles E.
Burke, E. Haviland Kearley, Hudson E. Shackleton, David James
Burns, John Kilbride, Denis Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Kitson, Sir James Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Caldwell, James Labouchere, Henry Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cameron, Robert Lambert, George Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Lamont, Norman Slack, John Bamford
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Langley, Batty Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Causton, Richard Knight Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Cawley, Frederick Layland-Barratt, Francis Soares, Ernest J.
Channing, Francis Allston Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants
Cheetham, John Frederick Levy, Maurice Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Churchill, Winston Spencer Lewis, John Herbert Stevenson, Francis S.
Clancy, John Joseph Lloyd-George, David Strachey, Sir Edward
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lundon, W. Sullivan, Donal
Crean, Eugene Lyell, Charles Henry Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Cremer, William Randal Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Crombie, John William MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Thomas, D. A. (Methyr)
Crooks, William M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Dalziel, James Henry M'Crae, George Tomkinson, James
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) M'Kean, John Toulmin, George
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan M'Kenna, Reginald Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Delany, William M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles Markham, Arthur Basil Wallace, Robert
Doogan, P. C. Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Mooney, John J. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Duffy, William J. Morley, Rt Hon. J. (Montrose) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Duncan, J. Hastings Moss, Samuel Weir, James Galloway
Dunn, Sir William Murphy, John White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Edwards, Frank Nannetti, Joseph P. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Ellice, Capt E C (S.Andrw'sBghs Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)
Ellis, J. Edward (Notts.) Norman, Henry Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Emmott, Alfred Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Nussey, Thomas Willans Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Eve, Harry Trelawney O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Wills, Arthur W. (N. Dorset)
Fenwick, Charles O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.) O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Wood, James
Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd
Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. O'Kelly, Conor, (Mayo, N.) Young, Samuel
Furness, Sir Christopher O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.) Yoxall, James Henry
Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John O'Malley, William
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Mara, James TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick Parrott, William Lough and Major Seely.
Griffith, Ellis, J. Partington, Oswald
MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

said it had been made perfectly clear that this Resolution had been rushed forward by the Government and an effort was being made to pass it through the House without that care which they might reasonably expect from the Government when they were setting up a precedent for the future. One thing was clear, and it was that the Resolution as it stood would allow the Government to introduce any number of additional Supplementary Estimates besides those already presented to the House. Was that the intention of the Government. Did they want power to introduce any Supplementary Estimates about which the House had heard nothing, and which might cover one of the most important points of policy at the present time? If that were so, it was the duty of the Opposition to oppose the Resolution to the utmost of their power. This proposal would give the Government power to deal with what might be unpopular questions to them, but questions which ought to be brought before the House at the proper time and in a proper way. His Amendment limited the operation of the Resolution to the Supplementary Estimates now before the House. If that was the intention of the Government then they could have no objection to the Amendment. He thought they ought to strongly protest against the continuous practice of bringing forward these Estimates. The fact that Supplementary Estimates were brought forward at all was due to want of foresight, miscalculations, and blunders in the policy of the Government. The most important were two gigantic blunders, one in regard to the expenses in the Whitaker Wright case, which was a miscalculation on the part of the Law Officers of the Crown; and the other was the compensation paid to Adolph Beck. The Amendment he proposed was a narrow one, and simply raised the question of what might be presented to the House, and he hoped the Government would accept it.

Amendment proposed— In line 2, to leave out the word 'any,' in order to insert the word 'the.'"— (Mr. Dalziel.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Question."


hoped the House would not accept this Amendment. It was not necessary to occupy time in discussing it. The hon. Gentleman had asked whether there would be any other Supplementary Estimates beyond those already before the House. He should say that it was almost inconceivable that there would be. The Resolution stated that in order to comply with the law it was necessary that the Supplementary Estimates should be disposed of before March 31st.


said he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman could not accept the Amendment, for he had admitted that under the words as they stood it would be possible to introduce a new Supplementary Estimate for, say, £500,000 on the day when the guillotine was to fall, and to pass it without a single word of discussion. The statement of the Attorney-General justified the Amendment. It was a revelation to find that the Government went so far as to claim power to introduce fresh Estimates which were not now within the purview of the House, and to rush them through under the powers conferred by this guillotine Resolution. This was a weapon which was going to be used again, and the statement that it was not probable that a new Estimate would be produced this year did not remove the objection to the proposal.

MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.)

said that he was inclined to believe after hearing the Attorney-General that the Government had two or three more Supplementary Estimates up their sleeve, which they meant to spring on the House. He did not think the House should be placed in a position which made it possible for Supplementary Estimates to be brought in and passed without any discussion, but that was the position in which it would be placed by this Resolution. There was now only a fortnight to run of the current financial year, and the Government ought now to know exactly what Supplementary Estimates were required to cover the expenditure of the year.

*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland)

said that there was a question of principle involved here which merited attention. The Attorney-General had said that if any further Supplementary Estimates were introduced they must be passed by 31st March. The object of the Amendment was to prevent any new Supplementary Estimates being introduced at all under the operation of the closure. The statement that it was almost inconceivable that the Government would introduce any fresh ones was a weak argument for refusing to accept the Amendment. In order to protest against a precedent being set which would govern future cases he hoped the Amendment would be pressed.


said this was a very extraordinary proposal. The Government must know what Supplementary Estimates they required. The First Lord of the Treasury might not know, but there (pointing to the Financial Secretary of the Treasury) was the Gentleman who knew. It was a remarkable thing that when they were discussing matters which came under the head of his Department he should be always absent. Why he was always absent he was at a loss to understand. Was it that he did not feel equal to giving a proper account of his Department? [Cries of "Oh,"] Well, what other reason could there be? The Prime Minister did not know what Estimates were to be brought forward. No one would expect him to know. He was engrossed in the labours

of leading a great Party, and he presided over the deliberations of the National Defence Committee. Did the Prime Minister give a pledge that no new Supplementary Estimates would be introduced?




Then, would not the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment? Some hon. Members had doubts which the Attorney-General had been quite unable to remove. The learned Gentleman said it was "almost inconceivable" that any other Supplementary Estimate would be introduced. That left a very considerable door open. They were doing something now which a week ago they should have thought almost inconceivable.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 236; Noes, 181. (Division List No. 57.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Cayzer, Sir Charles William Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Allsopp, Hon. George Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Finlay,Sir R B.(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Fisher, William Hayes
Arkwright, John Stanhope Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Wore. Fison, Frederick William
Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO Chapman, Edward FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose
Arrol, Sir William Clive, Captain Percy A. Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Coates, Edward Feetham Flower, Sir Ernest
Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.Sir H Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E. Forster, Henry William
Bagot, Capt. Joseeline FitzRoy Cohen, Benjamin Louis Foster,Philip S.(Warwick, S.W.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Galloway, William Johnson
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Gardner, Ernest
Baird, John George Alexander Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Garfit, William
Balcarres, Lord Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S. Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.
Baldwin, Alfred Cripps, Charles Alfred Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Balfour.Rt.Hon A.J.(Manch'r.) Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Gordon,Hn.J.E. (Elgin&Nairn)
Balfour, RtHnGerald W.(Leeds Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Gordon, Maj Evans T'r H'mlets
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-
Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor) Cubitt, Hon. Henry Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Cust, Henry John C. Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Dalkeith, Earl of Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Dalrymple, Sir Charles Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Davenport, William Bromley Green, WalfordD.(Wednesbury
Bignold, Sir Arthur Denny, Colonel Hain, Edward
Bigwood, James Dickson, Charles Scott Hall, Edward Marshall
Bill, Charles Dimsdale.Rt, Hon.Sir Joseph C. Halsey.Rt.Hon. Thomas F.
Bingham, Lord Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hambro, Charles Eric
Blundell, Colonel Henry Dixon-Hartland.Sir Fred Dixon Hamilton, RtHnLordG.(Midd'x
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Doughty, Sir George Hamilton,Marqof (L'nd'nderry
Boulnois, Edmund Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Hare, Thomas Leigh
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Doxford, Sir William Theodore Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th
Burdett-Coutts, W. Dyke, Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Butcher, John George Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Hay, Hon. Claude George
Campbell, Rt.Hn.J.A.(Glasgow Fardell, Sir T. George Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley
Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv. Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Heath, Sir James (Staffords.,N.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Fergusson, Rt.Hn.Sir J.Manc'r Helder, Augustus
Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.) Majendie, James A.H. Samuel, Sir Harry S. Limehouse
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Malcolm, Ian Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Hickman, Sir Alfred Marks, Hary Hananel Sharpe, William Edward T.
Hoare, Sir Samuel Martin, Richard, Bidduplh Sinclair, Louis(Romford)
Hobhouse, Rt Hn H(Somers'tE. Maxwell. Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Hogg, Lindsay Maxwell, W. J. H Dumfriesshire Sloan, Thomas Henry
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Mildmay, Francis Bingham Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Horner, Frederick William Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir FrederickG Smith, Rt, Hn.J Parker(Lanarks
Hoult, Joseph Milvain, Thomas Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Houston, Robert Paterson Mitchell, William(Burnley) Spear, John Ward
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Molesworth, Sir Lewis Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.
Hudson, George Bickersteth Morpeth, Viscount Stock, James Henry
Hunt, Rowland Morrell, George Herbert Stone, Sir Benjamin
Hutton, John(Yorks. N.R.) Morrison, James Archibald Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W. Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Kerr, John Muntz, Sir Philip A. Thorburn, Sir Walter
Kimber, Sir Henry Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Thornton, Percy M.
King, Sir Henry Seymour Nicholson, William Graham Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Laurie, Lieut.-General Parkes, Ebenezer Tuff, Charles
Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow) Percy, Earl Vincent. Col Sir C.E.H (Sheffield
Lawrence,SirJoseph (Monm'th Plummer, Sir Walter R. Walker, Col. William Hall
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Pretyman, Ernest George Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.
Lawson,Hn.H.L.W.(Mile End) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Warde, Colonel C. E.
Lawson,John Grant Yorks. NR Pym, C. Guy Webb, Colonel William George
Lee ArthurH. Hants. Fareham Randles, John S. Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E Taunton
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Rankin, Sir James Welby, Sir Charles G E. (Notts.)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Ractliff, R. F. Wharton, Rt, Hon. John Lloyd
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Reid, James(Greenock) Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Renwick, George Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Roberts, Samuel(Sheffield) Wilson, John(Glasgow)
Lowe, Francis William Robertson, Herbert(Hackney) Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Wylie, Alexander
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Round, Rt. Hon. James Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Macdona, John Cumming Rutherford, John(Lancashire)
Maclver, David (Liverpool) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Maconochie, A. W. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and
M'Calmont, Colonel James Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Viscount Valentia.
Abraham, William(Cork, N.E. Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Ainsworth, John Stirling Causton, Richard Knight Eve, Harry Trelawney
Allen, Charles P. Cawley, Frederick Fenwick, Charles
Ashton, Thomas Gair Channing, Francis Allston Findlay, Alexander(L'n'rk, N.E
Atherley-Jones, L. Cheetham, John Frederick Flavin, Michael Joseph
Barlow, John Emmott Churchill, Winston Spencer Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Clancy, John Joseph Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B. Condon, Thomas Joseph Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.
Benn, John Williams Crean, Eugene Fuller, J. M. F.
Black, Alexander William Cremer, William Randal Furness, Sir Christopher
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Crombie, John William Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Brigg, John Crooks, William Goddard, Daniel Ford
Bright, Allan Heywood Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)
Broadhurst, Henry Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) Griffith, Ellis J.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Delany, William Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Doogan, P. C. Harmsworth, R. Liecester
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Douglas, Charles M.(Lanark) Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.
Burke, E. Haviland Duffy, William J. Helme, Norval Watson
Burns, John Duncan, J. Hastings Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Dunn, Sir William Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Caldwell, James Edwards, Frank Higham, John Sharpe
Cameron, Robert Ellice, Capt E CS.A'dr'w'sB'ghs Horniman, Frederick John
Campbell John (Armagh, S.) Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Hutton. Alfred E. (Morley)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Emmott, Alfred Jacoby, James Alfred
Johnson, John Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Joicey, Sir James Norman, Henry Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Jones, David Brynmor Swansea Norton, Capt. Cecil William Soares, Ernest J.
Jones, Leif, (Appleby) Nussey, Thomas Willans Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Jordan, Jeremiah O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Stevenson, Francis S.
Kearley, Hudson E. O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N. Strachey, Sir Edward
Kilbride, Denis O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Sullivan, Donal
Kitson, Sir James O'Connor, John (Kildare, N. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Labouchere, Henry O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Tennant, Harold John
Lambert, George O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Lamont, Norman O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Langley, Batty O'Malley, William Tomkinson, James
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) O'Mara, James Toulmin, George
Layland-Barratt, Francis Parrott, William Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Partington, Oswald Wallace, Robert
Levy, Maurice Paulton, James Mellor Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Lewis, John Herbert Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Lloyd-George, David Perks, Robert William Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Lough, Thomas Rea, Russell Weir, James Galloway
Lundon, W. Rickett, J. Compton White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Lyell, Charles Henry Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) White, Patrick (Meath North)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roberts, John H. Denbighs.) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Robson, William Snowdon Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
M'Crae, George Roe, Sir Thomas Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
M'Kean, John Rose, Charles Day Wilson, John (Falkirk)
M'Kenna, Reginald Runciman, Walter Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Russell, T. W. Wood, James
Markham, Arthur Basil Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Schwann, Charles E. Young, Samuel
Mooney' John J. Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight Yoxall, James Henry
Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose Shackleton, David James
Moss, Samuel Sheehan, Daniel Daniel TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Moulton, John Fletcher Shipman, Dr. John G. Dalziel and Mr. J. H.
Murphy, John Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Whitley.
Nannetti, Joseph P. Slack, John Bamford

called upon Mr. Black to move the Amendment standing [...]n his name. To leave out "and Vote A and Vote 1 of the Estimates for the Navy."


said he would make bold to move the Amendment on behalf of the hon. Member with the alteration that it read "and Vote 1 of the Estimates of the Navy. His reason for discriminating between Vote A and Vote 1 was that Vote A fixed the number of men in the Navy, and it was necessary for the Government to have that Vote. Vote 1 came under the agreement established by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. McKenna), in regard to the Army, which had been pressed on the Leader of the House by the Leader of the Opposition. He would suggest that they should leave out Vote 1 and insert some other Navy Vote.

Amendment proposed— In line 3, to leave out the words 'and Vote I.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'and Vote 1' stand part of the Question."


said he hoped that the Government would give an ordinary courtesy to this Amendment. The suggestion was of some importance, because it was necessary for further information to be given before power was granted by the House.


said he could not suppose that the hon. Gentleman's proposal was to be taken seriously. If this Amendment were to be accepted the public service would seriously suffer.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 251; Noes, 178. (Division List No. 58.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Anson, Sir William Reynell Arrol, Sir William
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Arkwright, John Stanhope Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John
Allsopp, Hon. George Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H.
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Fisher, William Hayes Maconochie, A. W.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Fison, Frederick William M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Bain, Colonel James Robert FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose M'Calmont, Colonel James
Baird, John George Alexander Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Majendie, James A. H.
Balcarres, Lord Flower, Sir Ernest Malcolm, Ian
Baldwin, Alfred Forster, Henry William Marks, Harry Hananel
Balfour,Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Foster, Pliilip S. (Warwick, S. W. Martin, Richard Biddulph
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds Galloway, William Johnson Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E (Wigt'n
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gardner, Ernest Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Garfit, William Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Milner, Rt, Hn. Sir Frederick G.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Milvain, Thomas
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn) Mitchell, William (Burnley)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Bigwood, James Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow
Bill, Charles Goulding, Edward Alfred Morpeth, Viscount
Bingham, Lord Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury Morrell, George Herbert
Blundell, Colonel Henry Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS Edm'nds) Morrison, James Archibald
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Hain, Edward Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Boulnois, Edmund Hall, Edward Marshall Mount, William Arthur
Bousfield, William Robert Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thos. F. Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hambro, Charles Eric Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Bull, William James Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Mamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath
Butcher, John George Hare, Thomas Leigh Nicholson, William Graham
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)
Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv. Hay, Hon. Claude George Parkes, Ebenezer
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley) Percy, Earl
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Heath, Sir James (StaffordsN. W Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Helder, Augustus Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor) Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. Pretyman, Ernest George
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc. Hickman, Sir Alfred Purvis, Robert
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Hoare, Sir Samuel Pym, C. Guy
Chapman, Edward Hobhouse, Rt Hn. H (Somers't, E Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Clive, Captain, Percy A. Hogg, Lindsay Randles, John S.
Coates, Edward Feetham Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside) Rankin, Sir James
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Horner, Frederick William Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hoult, Joseph Ratcliff, R. F.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Houston, Robert Paterson Reid, James (Greenock)
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham) Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Renwick, George
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Hudson, George Bickersteth Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Cripps, Charles Alfred Hunt, Rowland Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W. Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Kerr, John Round, Rt, Hon. James
Cust, Henry John C. Kimber, Sir Henry Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Dalkeith, Earl of King, Sir Henry Seymour Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Laurie, Lieut.-General Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Davenport, W. Bromley Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Samuel, SirHarry S (Limehouse)
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Cbatham Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Denny, Colonel Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Dickson, Charles Scott Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon Sir Joseph C. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.NR Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Sloan, Thomas Henry
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Doughty, Sir George Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Smith, Rt. Hn. J. Parker (Lanark
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Llewellyn, Evan Henry Smith. Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Spear, John Ward
Duke, Henry Edward Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Lonsdale, John Brownlee Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lowe, Francis William Stock, James Henry
Fardell, Sir T. George Loyd, Archie Kirkman Stone, Sir Benjamin
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Fielden, Edward Brockleburst Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Macdona, John Cumming Thorburn, Sir Walter
Finlay, Sir R B (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs) MacIver, David (Liverpool) Thornton, Percy M
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Tritton, Charles Ernest Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Tuff, Charles Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield) Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne) Wylie, Alexander
Walker, Col. William Hall Whitmore, Charles Algernon Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Warde, Colonel C. E. Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Webb, Colonel William George Wilson, John (Glasgow) Alexander Acland-Hood and
Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton) Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks) Viscount Valentia.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Griffith, Ellis J. Paulton, James Mellor
Ainsworth, John Stirling Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Allen, Charles P. Harmsworth, R. Leicester Perks, Robert William
Ashton, Thomas Gair Harwood, George Pirie, Duncan V.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Rea, Russell
Atherlcy, (Jones, L. Helme, Norval Watson Rickett, J. Compton
Austin, Sir John Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Barlow, John Emmott Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Higham, John Sharpe Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Horniman, Frederick John Robson, William Snowdon
Benn, John Williams Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Roe, Sir Thomas
Black, Alexander William Jacoby, James Alfred Runciman, Walter
Brigg, John Johnson, John Russell, T. W.
bright, Allan Heywood Joicey, Sir James Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Broadhurst, Henry Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Schwann, Charles E.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Jones, Lief (Appleby) Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Shackleton, David James
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Kearley, Hudson E. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Kilbride, Denis Shipman, Dr. John G.
Burke, E. Haviland Kitson, Sir James Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Labouchere, Henry Slack, John Bamford
Caldwell, James Lambert, George Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Cameron, Robert Lamont, Norman Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Campbell-Bannerman Sir H. Langley, Batty Soares, Ernest J.
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants)
Causton, Richard Knight Layland-Barratt, Francis Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Cawley, Frederick Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington) Stevenson, Francis S.
Channing, Francis Allston Levy, Maurice Strachey, Sir Edward
Cheetham, John Frederick Lewis, John Herbert Sullivan, Donal
Clancy, John Joseph Lloyd-George, David Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Lough, Thomas Tennant, Harold John
Crean, Eugene Lundon, W. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Cremer, William Randal Lyell, Charles Henry Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Crombie, John William Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Tillett, Louis John
Crooks, William MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Tomkinson, James
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Toulmin, George
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) M'Crae, George Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Delany William M'Kean, John Wallace, Robert
Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles M'Kenna, Reginald Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Duffy, William J. Markham, Arthur Basil Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Duncan, J. Hastings Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Dunn, Sir William Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose) Weir, James Galloway
Edwards, Frank Moss, Samuel White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ellice, Capt. E. C. (S Andrw'sB'gh) Moulton, John Fletcher White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Ellis, John Edward (Notts) Murphy, John Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Emmott, Alfred Nannetti, Joseph P. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone Norman, Henry Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Eve, Harry Trelawney Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Fenwiek, Charles Nussey, Thomas Willans Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E) O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wood, James
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsf'd)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W.) Young, Samuel
Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. O'Connor, John (Kildare N.) Yoxall, James Henry
Fuller, J. M. F. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Furness, Sir Christopher O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John O' Mara, James Churchill and Mr. Dalziel.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Parrott, William
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) Partington, Oswald

MR. WHITLEY moved to leave out in line 5 all words after "disposed of" and to insert in their place, "not be interrupted under any Standing Order of the House." His object was to do away with the guillotine, and to substitute for it the ordinary methods employed by other Ministers who had experienced difficulty in getting through the business of the financial year, viz.:—by moving the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule. He ventured to assert that the First Lord of the Treasury had shown no case for the application of this new weapon, and he would suggest that they should try the old customs of the House before they trusted the First Lord of the Treasury or his successors with the weapon contained in the Motion. They were prepared to sacrifice their time and leisure in order to consider the business of the country, and if the Prime Minister refused that offer, it followed that the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution was designed with the utmost care to safeguard both the after-lunch siesta and the after-dinner siesta of his supporters. The House would agree that the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule would be amply sufficient to perform the work.

Amendment proposed— In line 5, to leave out from the word 'of,' to the end of the Question, in order to insert the words 'not be interrupted under any Standing Order of the House.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)

Question proposed, "That the words to the word 'Five,' in line 6, stand part of the Question."


said the hon. Gentleman apparently desired to obtain a series of all-night sittings, and he had suggested, towards the end of his speech, that with a little tact the business could have been got through. He did not claim to have the powers of management attributed to him, but he was afraid that whatever powers of persuasion he possessed, however silvern might be his tongue, and even if he were a perfect Orpheus in bringing stocks and stones [...]o follow his advice, he would fail to carry out the benevolent suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment was recommended on the ground that it followed the old traditions of the House. It did not. The old tradition was that whenever there was a difficulty with public business the first thing to be sacrificed was the rights of private Members; and before the Government could suspend the twelve o'clock rule now, they must take away the Tuesday and Wednesday evenings and the Fridays. That would be a bad precedent which he did not mean to follow. Even if the twelve o'clock rule were suspended, he did not think the measure would be sufficient to enable the law to be complied with.

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)

said the Amendment opened up a very large question, in fact the whole question of the Supply rules as they appeared upon the Paper. He, therefore, desired to join in the chorus of condemnation which had proceeded from the Liberal side of the House, a chorus which, when these rules were made public, would be taken up through the whole length and breadth of the land. This new suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to him to be a complete illustration of the old proverb, "bad workmen have a tendency to complain of their tools." He was not surprised at the action of the right hon. Gentleman. It was typical of his whole character in the Leadership of the House. The House, no doubt, had got into a difficulty; but how had they got into it? Why was it necessary to resort to this drastic procedure to carry the Estimates and obtain supplies before the end of March? There was no reason. He had sat in the House for some years, and they had all recognised the necessity of all-night sittings when impasses of this kind had arisen in the business of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, in his opinion, was not warranted in moving such a Resolution at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman should have given considerable notice; he should have disclosed his intentions and taken the House into his confidence, and have seen whether the House was not willing to grant him supplies. He should have tried the effect of one or two all-night sittings before resorting to such procedure as this. The right hon. Gentleman was driving the House in this matter, and he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman or any other Leader of the House would find such methods effective. He hoped even now the right hon. Gentleman, on further consideration, would permit the House to revert to the old plan of all-night sittings.

*MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross)

said he also desired to support the Amendment. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was no fonder of all-night sittings than the right hon. Gentleman, but he thought it was very much better to have all-night sittings, if necessary, rather than to agree to this procedure. The House, no doubt, was in a difficulty, but the Prime Minister was responsible for it. If the advice given by his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had been followed, and a Select Committee of the House had been formed to consider their rules and procedure, they would have got through this business in a much better way than under the new rules, which every old Member cordially detested. He should most certainly support the Amendment.


readily acknowledged that the Prime Minister was watching the debate with an attention the more noticeable because exceptionally unusual. All who had followed the course of the discussion would admit that in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's presence they had made more rapid progress than they otherwise would have done, and there was no reason at all why the Prime Minister should underrate the advantage of that tact and management of which he had spoken in unnecessarily modest terms. But the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension in thinking that the supporters of the Amendment desired to take away the rights of private Members. Nothing was further from their wishes, or, he ventured to say, from the wishes of the Prime Minister himself, inasmuch as there were three fiscal Resolutions down, and the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to do anything to prevent their being discussed, especially as resort to the previous Question was always open to him. The proposal of his hon. friend was that the House should sit up, and while he would not prophesy that by half-a-dozen sittings until three or four o'clock they would dispose of the work before them, it was at all events a plan worth trying. They were not entitled to mutilate the procedure of the House of Commons for their own convenience. It might be that the present position of public business was so grave that exceptional and extraordinary measures were necessary, but they ought not to be ready on every occasion to get out of their difficulties by cutting a path through the rules of the House of Commons before they had tried the experiment of subjecting themselves to some little inconvenience and discomfort. The declaration of the Prime Minister as to the ability of his supporters to attend regularly through all-night sittings removed one of the principal objections to the Amendment, because it had been understood that the great difficulty was to get hon. Gentlemen opposite to attend. If the right hon. Gentleman had the confidence he professed, why did he not show it by adopting the Amendment? Many objections could be urged against all-night sittings, but the ancestors of present Members had not been afraid to subject themselves to considerable strain and exertion in the interests of public and free discussion. When Parliament was engaged in the prosecution of John Wilkes no fewer than twenty-three divisions were taken in one all-night sitting, and Mr. Burke, in his Memorials and Letters, made a special point of his pride at having sat up all night to oppose so iniquitous an Administration. It would be very uncomplimentary to attempt to draw any parallel between the Prime Minister and the Duke of Grafton, but it was the fact that the present Administration, like that of the Duke of Grafton, possessed a servile majority within the walls of Parliament, while destitute of the confidence of the country outside. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division, because it would show that they would rather inflict upon the present temporary occupants of that House physical and mental exertion, and even suffering, than injure the great institution of which, for the time being, they were the humble and possibly unworthy Members.

MR. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury)

said that while the last thing his hon. friend desired was to interfere with the rights of private Members on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, the Amendment, as worded, appeared to apply to those days, and he suggested that it should be altered so as to read, "shall not be interrupted under Standing Order 1." As to the recent all-night sittings, he had sat through them all, and his recollections of them were far from unpleasant. In many cases, the discussions up to three o'clock in the morning were by no means bad; they went into great detail, the criticism was of a high order, and most important matters were dealt with long after midnight. He was not in general an advocate of late sittings, but the Government were in a serious difficulty as to procedure,

from which the proper way of escape was, not to ride roughshod through the Standing Orders of the House, but to put Members to a certain amount of discomfort so that the necessary business might be got through. Physical discomfort was much less serious than the curbing of free discussion, and instead of embarking on elaborate machinery, which was detrimental to the best interests of the House, the right hon. Gentleman should ask the House to submit to a certain amount of hard work, if necessary, at uncomfortable hours.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 271; Noes, 183. (Division List No. 59.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Chamberlain Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.) Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon
Allsopp, Hon. George Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton) Flower, Sir Ernest
Anson, Sir William Reynell Chapman, Edward Forster, Henry William
Arkwright, John Stanhope Clive, Captain Percy A. Foster Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.)
Arnold-Forster Rt. Hn Hugh O. Coates, Edward Feetham Galloway, William Johnson
Arrol, Sir William Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Gardner, Ernest
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cohen, Benjamin Louis Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.
Aubrey-Fletcher, R. Hn. Sir H. Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Craig Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby.
Baird, John George Alexander Cripps, Charles Alfred Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Balcarres, Lord Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Baldwin, Alfred Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Goulding, Edward Alfred
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Graham, Henry Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds Cust, Henry John C. Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.) Dalkeith, Earl of Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Dalrymple, Sir Charles Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS. Edm'nds)
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Davenport, W. Bromley Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Davies Sir Horatio D. (Chatham) Hain, Edward
Beach Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Denny, Colonel Hall, Edward Marshall
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Dewar Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets) Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Dickson, Charles Scott Hambro, Charles Eric
Bignold, Sir Arthur Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. Hamilton Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x)
Bigwood, James Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hamilton. Marq. of (L'donderry)
Bill, Charles Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bingham, Lord Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Doughty, Sir George Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Hay, Hon. Claude George
Boulnois, Edmund Doxford, Sir William Theodore Heath Arthur Howard (Hanley)
Bousfield, William Robert Duke, Henry Edward Heath Sir James (Staffords. N W)
Brassey, Albert Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Helder, Augustus
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)
Bull, William James Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Burdett-Coutts, W. Fardell, Sir T. George Hickman, Sir Alfred
Butcher, John George Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Hoare, Sir Samuel
Campbell Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow) Fergusson, R. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r) Hobhouse Rt Hn H. (Somers't, E)
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Hogg, Lindsay
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Finch, Rt, Hon. George H. Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire) Finlay Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs) Horner, Frederick William
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Fisher, William Hayes Hoult, Joseph
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Fison, Frederick William Houston, Robert Paterson
Howard, John (Kent, Faversham) Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W)
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Sharpe, William Edward T.
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Morgan David J. (Walthamstow) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Hudson, George Bickersteth Morpeth, Viscount Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Hunt, Rowland Morrell, George Herbert Sloan, Thomas Henry
Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) Morrison, James Archibald Smith, Abel H. (Hertford. East)
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Smith, Rt, Hn J. Parker (Lanarks)
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Mount, William Arthur Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray Spear, John Ward
Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Muntz, Sir Philip A. Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Kerr, John Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Keswick, William Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs)
Kimber, Sir Henry Nicholson, William Graham Stock, James Henry
King, Sir Henry Seymour Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Laurie, Lieut.-General Parkes, Ebenezer Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Pease Herbert Pike (Darlington Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th) Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Pemberton, John S. G. Thorburn, Sir Walter
Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End) Percy, Earl Thornton, Percy M.
Lawson John Grant (Yorks. N. R) Platt-Higgins, Frederick Tollemache, Henry James
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham) Plummer, Sir Walter R. Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Tritton, Charles Ernest
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Pretyman, Ernest George Tuff, Charles
Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Tuke, Sir John Batty
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Purvis, Robert Vincent Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield)
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Pym, C. Guy Walker, Col. William Hall
Long, Col. Chas. W (Evesham Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Randles, John S. Warde, Colonel C. E.
Lowe, Francis William Rankin, Sir James Webb, Colonel William George
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne Welby Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton)
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Ratcliff, R. F. Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Lucas Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Reid, James (Greenock) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Remnant, James Farquharson Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Macdona, John Cumming Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Renwick, George Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Maconochie, A. W. Ridley, S. Forde Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
M'Calmont, Colonel James Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Majendie, James A. H. Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Malcolm, Ian Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Marks, Harry Hananel Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Martin, Richard Biddulph Round, Rt. Hon. James Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E (Wigt'n Royds, Clement Molyneux Wylie, Alexander
Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire Rutherford, John (Lancashire Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Milner, R. Hn. Sir Frederick G Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Milvain, Thomas Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex. Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Mitchell, William (Burnley) Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse) and Viscount Valentia.
Molesworth, Sir Lewis Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Burke, E. Haviland Delany, William
Allen, Charles P. Burns, John Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Ashton, Thomas Gair Buxton, Sydney Charles Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Caldwell, James Duncan, J. Hastings
Atherley-Jones, L. Cameron, Robert Dunn, Sir William
Austin, Sir John Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Edwards, Frank
Barlow, John Emmott Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Ellice, Capt E C (S. Andrw'sBghs)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Causton, Richard Knight Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Cawley, Frederick Emmott, Alfred
Bell, Richard Channing, Francis Allston Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Benn, John Williams Cheetham, John Frederick Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone)
Black, Alexander William Churchill, Winston Spencer Eve, Harry Trelawney
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Clancy, John Joseph Fenwick, Charles
Brigg, John Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Findlay Alexander (Lanark, N E)
Bright, Allan Heywood Crean, Eugene Flavin, Michael Joseph
Broadhurst, Henry Cremer, William Randal Foster, Sir Walter (DerbyCo.)
Brown George M. (Edinburgh) Crombie, John William Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Crooks, William Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.
Fuller, J. M. F. M' Kenna, Reginald Shaw, Thomas (Hawick. B.)
Furness, Sir Christopher M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Markham, Arthur Basil Shipman, Dr. John G.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) Morley, Rt, Hn. John (Montrose) Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Griffith, Ellis J. Moss, Samuel Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Moulton, John Fletcher Soares, Ernest J.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Murphy, John Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Nannetti, Joseph P. Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Harwood, George Newnes, Sir George Stevenson, Francis S.
Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Strachey, Sir Edward
Helme, Norval Watson Norman, Henry Sullivan, Donal
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Nussey, Thomas Willans Tennant, Harold John
Higham, John Sharpe O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid Thomas. Sir A. J (Glamorgan, E.)
Holland, Sir William Henry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Horniman, Frederick John O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Tillett, Louis John
Button, Alfred E. (Morley) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Tomkinson, James
Jacoby, James Alfred O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Toulmin, George
Johnson, John O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Joicey, Sir James O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Wallace, Robert
Jones David Brynmor (Swansea) O'Mara, James Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Parrott, William Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Partington, Oswald Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Jordan, Jeremiah Paulton, James Mellor Weir, James Galloway
Kearley, Hudson E. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) White, George (Norfolk)
Kilbride, Denis Perks, Robert William White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Kitson, Sir James Pirie, Duncan V. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Labouchere, Henry Rea, Russell Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Lambert, George Reckitt, Harold James Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Lament, Norman Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Langley, Batty Rickett, J. Compton Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
[...]Layland-Barratt, Francis Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Wood, James
Leigh, Sir Joseph Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hudd'rsfi"d
Levy, Maurice Robson, William Snowdon Young, Samuel
Lewis, John Herbert Roe, Sir Thomas Yoxall, James Henry
Lough, Thomas Runciman, Walter
Lyell, Charles Henry Russell, T. W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Mr. J. H. Whitley and Mr.
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Schwann, Charles E. Eugene Wason.
M'Crae, George Seely, Maj J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)
M'Kean, John Shackleton, David James

Bill read a second time, and committed.

MR. WHITLEY moved to omit "five" in line 6, and insert "seven." He said the object was to give two hours longer discussion before the guillotine fell. They made the offer to the right hon. Gentleman, and they were willing to sacrifice something out of their dinner hour if he would meet them in this respect.

Amendment proposed— In line 6, to leave out the word 'Five,' in order to insert the word 'Seven.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'Five' stand part of the Question."


said he was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his offer. He believed that the proposal to stop discussion at half-past five would be more pleasing to the majority of the House. He did not know that much would be gained by adopting the Amendment, and something would be lost.


said he had another Amendment on the Paper which was rather dependent on this. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was to put the Civil Service Estimates in one block instead of in their various classes. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to accept the subsequent Amendment which provided for giving the House the opportunity of voting on the Civil Service Estimates in classes?


said it was perfectly obvious that the reason why the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and those who supported him wished to substitute "seven" for "five" was to take advantage of every occasion during the passage of the Resolution of showing their detestation of the methods which it embodied. They were bound to take all recognised occasions of showing their entire dissent from the manner in which they had been treated. The right hon. Gentleman had not condescended to accept a single Amendment; and they might as well be arguing with stocks and stones. Even when the right hon. Gentleman was asked to substitute the word "the" for "any," and although he admitted it made no difference, he refused to accept the Amendment. If such a small concession would not affect the general proposal, and would, at the same time, conciliate hon. Gentlemen, he did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should refuse to accept it. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to obtain his Resolution without putting a greater strain on his followers why did he not make some offer or proposal which would make the Resolution a little more satisfactory. Surely the right hon. Gentleman was not such a tyrant as to refuse harmless concessions which would make his proposal more acceptable, or at least less objectionable.

MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.)

said he regarded the Amendment as being of a very reasonable character, and was surprised that the Prime Minister did not advance any better reason against it than brute force. The right hon. Gentleman stated that half-past five o'clock would be more acceptable to the majority of the House. That was not a good reason to advance. The minority had always been regarded as possessing certain rights; but, apparently, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, they had no rights at all. Not only had the Prime Minister not accepted the Amendment, but he had not condescended to give any reason for rejecting it. He himself had some admiration for the Prime Minister, though not for all his methods, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give some reason for refusing to accept a reasonable Amendment such as that before the House. Action of that kind was calculated to throw reasonable and moderate men like himself into the hands of Gentlemen who sometimes proposed un- reasonable Amendments. He objected to be ruled by a majority; majorities did not always possess the best arguments; and indeed it used to be said that all the virtues were with minorities. He did not proceed as far as that himself; but he desired to protest against the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had opposed the Amendment.


said that if common rumour were to be trusted the First Lord was prepared to make concessions in certain important particulars. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether that was the case or not.


said the arrangement which he was willing to accept, and which he had reason to believe would not be disagreeable to hon. Gentlemen opposite, was to allow Vote A to stand in the Resolution, and substitute for Vote 1 Vote 7, which related to provisions and forage. He had already promised the House a full opportunity to discuss the general Army policy of the Government immediately after the commencement of the new financial year, and he proposed to take that general discussion on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State for War. That Vote would, therefore, be put down as the first Order on Monday, April 3rd, but it would be part of the honourable understanding which he was suggesting to the House that the Committee stage and the Report stage should be taken in the course of that week, so as to be able to proceed with the other business during the following week without feeling financially handicapped. Vote 7 related to stores, provisions, and forage, and on that it would be possible to raise the important question brought to the notice of the House by the Auditor-General's Report. He did not think it would be desirable to raise it at that early stage, and if it was the wish of the House he would undertake to give a more fitting opportunity for its discussion later on. It must be understood that the South African Report would not come up then, but if hon. Members desired it they could have more time by passing that Vote through without discussion. He would put it down for the second Order of the Day. It would be understood that the South African question would come up separately and at a later stage.


said there was another proposal that the Government would give two days instead of one next week for getting the Speaker out of the Chair on the Army Estimates. He also asked whether on the week beginning April 3rd. Vote 1 would be put down on the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.


replied that if the House desired the discussion to extend over those four days he would provide for it, but it was a very exceptional demand to make on the time of the House, and he rather thought it would not be necessary to take the whole of those four days.


asked whether it was to be understood that as the discussion on the South African stores question was not to be taken on Vote 7, it would not be deferred too long to the disappointment of the public interest in it.


believed it was the general wish that the Public Accounts Committee should first deal with the matter. The Motion would be put down at once in order to give the earliest opportunity for its discussion.


thought the right hon. Gentlemen must not understand that they accepted so broadly, as he put it, the idea that the matter of the South African stores was to be referred for further consideration to the Public Accounts Committee.


I do not make that a condition, but it would be convenient if it could be done.


said it would be undesirable to divide on the Amendment as the First Lord had met the chief objection with regard to Vote 1, but he thought the usual interval for dinner might be availed of for considering more fully the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions.

And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned until this Evening's Sitting.