HC Deb 10 March 1910 vol 14 cc1644-81
Class IV.
£
Board of Education 2,100,000
Class II.
Foreign Office 12,500
Board of Trade 50,000
Class I.
Royal Palaces 10,000
Osborne 2,500
£
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens 27,500
Houses of Parliament Buildings 10,000
Campbell-Bannerman Memorial 500
Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain 14,500
Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain 25,000
Diplomatic and Consular Buildings 17,500
Revenue Buildings 70,000
Labour Exchange Buildings, Great Britain 25,000
Public Buildings, Great Britain 95,000
Surveys of the United Kingdom 27,000
Harbours under the Board of Trade 15,000
Peterhead Harbour 1,000
Rates on Government Property 41,000
Public Works and Buildings, Ireland 35,000
Railways, Ireland 17,500
Class II.
United Kingdom and England:—
House of Lords Offices 6,000
House of Commons Offices 10,000
Treasury and Subordinate Departments 22,500
Home Office 25,000
Colonial Office 12,500
Privy Council Office 2,500
Mercantile Marine Services 12,500
Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade 3
Board of Agriculture and Fisheries 26,500
Charity Commission 7,500
Civil Service Commission 7,500
Exchequer and Audit Department 12,500
Friendly Societies Registry 1,750
Local Government Board 34,000
Lunacy Commission 2,250
Mint (including Coinage) 10
National Debt Office 3,000
Public Record Office 5,000
Public Works Loan Commission 20
Registrar-General's Office 8,500
Stationery and Printing 100,000
Woods, Forests, etc., Office of 4,000
Works and Public Buildings, Office of 20,500
Secret Service 10,000
Scotland:—
Secretary for Scotland, Office of 21,000
Fishery Board 4,250
Lunacy Commission 1,250
Registrar-General's Office 1,000
Local Government Board 3,500
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I gave him brief and private notice, and for which, doubtless, he was already prepared. The question is: Why, in the Vote on Account which was circulated this morning, there is taken a sum sufficient to last for only six weeks instead of following the practice which has been pursued uniformly, I think, since the year 1896, of taking Supply for four or five or more months, or, in other words, for such a time as will cover the normal length of the Session, and relieve the House from again having to pass subsequent Votes on Account of a similar kind, as was formerly the Parliamentary practice? This Vote, I notice, is taken for a period of only six weeks. That would, of course, be six weeks from 1st April. Particularly interpreted, that would bring us to 13th May; in other words, to a point which must be, I think, within our Spring Recess, whatever is that Recess. The 13th May is the Friday before Whit-Sunday. If it be the fact that the Treasury have drawn the Estimate accurately for six weeks, I cannot conceive a more inconvenient time at which the authority for payments should lapse than at the very moment when, in ordinary circumstances, the House has adjourned for the Whitsuntide Recess, and when, according to the programme foreshadowed by the Prime Minister for this year, we shall be in the middle of the combination of Easter and Whitsuntide holidays, which he has called the Spring Recess. I do not desire to make any comment on the proposal of the Government at this point, but I reserve my right to do that later if it be required. I shall be much obliged if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain to the Committee what the reason is for departing from the ordinary practice?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

It is not really the case that we are departing from any very ancient precedent. We are simply reverting to the practice which was the established practice in this House up to the year 1896, when Votes on Account were taken, as a rule, for six weeks, or in some cases for a month, and in some for a couple of months, the reason being that it was very desirable that the House of Commons can have control over the Executive. In 1896 the party to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Chamberlain) belongs, being in office at that time, for the first time departed from what I still think was an excellent practice, and they made the Votes on Account for three, four or five months. We thought that that was weakening the control of Parliament. We protested strongly against it at the time. The right hon. Gentleman says it is very unusual. Well, the circumstances are rather unusual. I am glad I have been able to make an observation which commands universal assent. Therefore, the very foundation of the Government's action is one which is accepted by all quarters of the House. And the reason why we depart from what has been the practice, which was not introduced until 1896, and is not a very old one, and why we have taken this occasion for reverting to the older and better Parliamentary practice, is because the financial position is quite an unusual one. The practice referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, he points out, has been uniformly pursued by the House of Commons since 1896. There are other financial expedients which were uniformly pursued by the House of Commons up to the present from a period long before 1896. These have been departed from, and that forces us to depart to this extent from the practice of extending the Votes on Account beyond six weeks. The same observation applies to Vote 10 of the Navy. The reason why we did not take Vote 1 was that if we took Vote 1 it would vote more money than we want. With a view to restoring the complete control of the House of Commons over the Executive, I think that the House of Commons ought to have another opportunity, especially about that date, of expressing its opinion about the Executive, from whichever side it is brought in. I think it is very important that the House of Commons should have full control over the Executive, and especially at that time. For those reasons we do not think it expedient to invite the House of Commons at this stage to arm the Executive with funds that will make it practically independent of the House of Commons as far as funds are concerned for more than that very crucial period in its history. That is the real reason why we made this departure not from a very old-established precedent, but from a very bad precedent that was set by our predecessors in office, by the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs. That is the real explanation, and I think it is one that will commend itself to the House of Commons.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just made is one of some importance, and I confess that a declaration of policy of this kind would, I think, be better made by the Government on their own Motion and as part of a formally considered policy than surreptitiously embodied in the Vote on Account, presented to the House of Commons without a word of explanation, and left to the Opposition to comment on and elicit the reasons for. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that he never approved of the principle of bringing into the Vote on Account sufficient to last the duration of the ordinary Session. He rightly says that that was an innovation made by the party to which I belong, which, however, I think found a new reason and foundation when, at the instigation of that party, the Supply Rules of the House of Commons were changed on the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The old practice was that no fixed days were allotted for Supply. Every Government could in turn postpone Supply to the very end of the Session, and then, when all the business had been concluded, might sit night after night late in July, or very frequently, I think, in August. I remember, even in my Parliamentary life, at least one occasion when it was September. The House sat until three or four o'clock in the morning, or later, rushing through Votes in Supply, many of which were never discussed at all, and most of which were discussed under circumstances of the greatest inconvenience and the least possible utility to the public service. For that scheme my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) induced the House to substitute the present Supply Rules, by which a certain number of days must be allotted in the very best period of the Session to the discussion of Supply, and by the practice which he established, and which all Governments are likely to follow, the decision as to what Vote is to be put down on any particular day, is practically left to the critics of the Government—to the Opposition in the first place—or if the Opposition have exhausted their criticism, then to the critics of the Government on their own side. Under the old system, when the Votes in Supply were thrust back to the last moments of the Session and then taken, as I said, at all hours of the night and day, Parliament was naturally, and properly, reluctant to granting large sums on account to the Government, because that made it independent of Parliament for all purposes of Supply for the time for which the Vote on Account was granted. When fixed days were allotted, one in each week, to Supply, and the Government was obliged to come to the House week after week, putting down whichever Vote the House most desired to discuss, it became quite unnecessary, and indeed, a pure waste of time to multiply Votes on Account. A Vote on Account was put down as the first Order on any given day, making that day what is called a counting day in Supply. Accordingly, when you put down a Vote on Account you subtract one day that might be taken for the discussion of the actual Votes concerned. If you multiply Votes on Account then you have to give a day for each Vote on Account, so that each time you have an additional Vote on Account you render it necessary to subtract a further day from the number of days allotted to Supply. The House loses by this practice, and though the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he and his Friends protested at the time it was introduced and voted against it, I think they have become fairly reconciled to it, because for four years they have pursued it themselves without a twinge of conscience, without a hint that it was an inconvenient practice established by their predecessors which they intended to subvert.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Not inconvenient.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Improper practice. I think that was the adjective. I take whatever adjective the Chancellor wishes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a great master of adjectives. Though they may be in doubt as to the propriety of the practice, the Government themselves have followed it for four years, and if they were in office next year they would set it up again. They are breaking through it this year for a purely temporary purpose, as, indeed, the Chancellor admits, and this suggestion that the practice is improper or undesirable does not carry conviction to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, or to any Gentleman in this House. That was only introduced to give a little colour to an otherwise shabby manoeuvre in the Parliamentary game which the Government have been playing since we met. As the days pass the policy of the Government is constantly being altered and constantly being subjected to new developments. I have pointed out already that the Votes to be taken next week on the Navy Estimates are different from those which the Prime Minister announced a week or so ago. They are altered, as the Chancellor tells us, because if the Government take Vote 1, as they originally proposed, they would get a great deal more money than they had need of, and the Executive would be able to pay the sailors for a longer period than the six weeks which seems desirable to the Government.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I venture to correct the right hon. Gentleman. I did not say that. As the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, that is not strictly accurate. It is not a question of paying the sailors for a longer period; it is a question of coming to the House of Commons to ask for fresh funds when these are exhausted. Nobody suggests that the sailors should not be paid the very moment the money is due. When the Vote is exhausted, the Executive for the time being can come to the House of Commons.

The CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman and the Committee must see that the question of the Navy Vote is not one we can discuss now.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I am in some difficulty, as the House knows. I see that you, Sir, are in a difficulty also. [Cries of "Order."] Let me make my meaning clear. I am quite certain, Sir, that you do not think that I was guilty of any discourtesy to you. The Chairman has to administer the Rules of the House; sometimes those Rules are inconvenient to all parties, and then the position of the Chairman is one of some difficulty when he has to consider whether it is desirable for the sake of convenience, and at the general desire of the Committee, that he should give a latitude to an hon. Member who is speaking which goes beyond that to which he is strictly entitled. What occurred in this case was that this alteration in the business of next week was mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Question time. He gave notice of the change in the ordinary way. I had intended at the same time to ask the Government for an explanation of the present Vote on Account, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that an explanation could not be given very well in answer to a question, and it would be more convenient if I deferred my question until we got into Committee, and the explanation he gave on the Vote on Account would be also an explanation of the Vote for the Navy. I did at once call attention to the fact that we might have some difficulty in discussing the change as affecting the Navy in this Committee, and I tried to get the Speaker's guidance on the subject, but Mr. Speaker said he did not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to say, and therefore he could not indicate before we went into Committee whether what he said would be in order or not.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

On a point of Order. I accept the absolute accuracy of the narrative given by the right hon. Gentleman, but at the same time he could have only asked me a question with the Speaker in the Chair; it could not have been discussed then. The right hon. Gentleman asked for an explanation, and that explanation I have given. I could not have said more, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could have said more, with the Speaker in the Chair. It was at Question time, and he might have asked this question, but he could not have discussed it.

Mr. LOUGH

On a point of Order. May I ask whether, as both the right hon. Gentlemen have alluded to the Supply Rules of 1896, it will be possible for other Members of the House to refer to them also?

The CHAIRMAN

It depends entirely whether the arguments are relative to the points before the Committee.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I will try to conform to your ruling, Sir. I will not discuss the question of the Navy Vote, and I pass from it with two observations. The Government have evidently altered their policy since the Prime Minister announced the business for next week. At that time it had not occurred to the right hon. Gentleman to deal with Supply in this way. I think I can arrive at the date of their change of mind more closely than that. When they put down the Army Estimates they did not take Vote A and Vote 10, but they took Vote A and Vote 1. What has occurred, then, within the last few days? What fresh comings and goings, what new threatening letters have the Government received, that they again alter their programme, and now settle that means are to be found for carrying on the King's Government for six weeks and no longer? I believe it is pretty clear what the Government had in their minds. I think it has been pretty clear from the moment when they declined to take the Budget, in accordance with the statement of the Prime Minister, as the first act of this new Parliament. They are threatened men; they hold their official life by a precarious thread that may be snapped at any moment, and they know it.

Sir HENRY DALZIEL

Why do you give them more money?

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Why? Because giving them more money will not prolong their life. If it would, that might be a very good reason for restricting the Vote. But I think it is obvious what are the Government's intentions. They propose to provide just enough to go on into the middle of May. By that time they think their own life will be about coming to an end, and the one thing on which they have determined, and the only object that amidst all these twistings and twinings they are steadily pursuing, is to leave the greatest financial confusion behind them they can. That is what I call a shabby game. The Prime Minister talked solemnly of carrying on the King's Government with credit as long as the right hon. Gentlemen beside him were Ministers. There is little credit from their present proceeding, there is little thought for the dignity of the Crown, for the due conduct of public business, and for the convenience of the public service. Everything of that kind is made subservient to their party and in the hope that they may stave off defeat, if fortune is kind to them; but that, at any rate, they may leave a financial morass behind them for anybody who tries to follow in their footsteps. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose fault is it?"] We are a minority in the House, within two, however, of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and whether that majority of two will remain after the petitions have been heard can only be known when they have been decided. We can only enter our protest against the public interests being once again sacrificed to the party necessities of a weak and feeble Government.

Mr. GIBSON BOWLES

May I introduce the cold light of reason after the histrionics to which we have just listened. First of all, I think the fears and the terrible heartburnings of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to what is to happen after 15th May may prove to be entirely unfounded. He reckons that on 15th May the Government will be gone, and that he, the future Chancellor of the Exchequer, will find himself in a morass of their digging. No, Sir, the morass is not of their digging, the morass was dug down the passage, and the order to dig it came from Birmingham, from that Birmingham which indifferently manufactures false gods for the heathen and false policies for British statesmen. Let him not be too sure that this Government will be gone by 15th May. The man that once did sell the lion's skin while the beast lived was killed with hunting him. I have seen nothing in the exploits, not even in the questions, of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that entitles them to feel confident of their strength to beat even this despised Ministry. They are a leaderless lot. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is your leader?"] My leader sits on this Front Bench—my leader is any man who leads the party against Protection. I am here because you on that side have forsaken the policy of the late Lord Salisbury, and of every Conservative Minister who ever had brains in his head. If I am here it is because you have engaged in a conspiracy for which you have found pliant tools, and because you sent down a dog in the manger to every seat—

Lord HUGH CECIL

I wish to ask how is this relevant to the Vote under discussion?

The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member is getting rather wide of the Question, but I think he was led into it by an interruption.

Mr. GIBSON BOWLES

I was endeavouring to give a courteous reply to an insolent question. I want to come to close quarters with the right hon. Gentleman. He says that up till the invention of the system of allotted days the principle of a Vote on Account was to give a small Vote for a short period. I hope I rightly understood him.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I did not say that.

Mr. GIBSON BOWLES

That is what I understood.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Historically that is not quite accurate.

Mr. GIBSON BOWLES

That is what I was about to say.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The Vote on Account was usually, I think, for three or four months, or four or five. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen are so anxious to contradict me that they will not listen to what I have to say. Before 1896 the Vote on Account was usually for two months at the outside. After 1896 it was usually for a period almost comtemporaneous with the Session. Since the new Rule came in that was found to be the most convenient practice.

Mr. GIBSON BOWLES

I am sure I have no desire to misrepresent what the right hon. Gentleman said. I did understand him to say that there was a defect produced by the allotted days, resulting in lengthening the time and increasing the amount of the Vote on Account. But at any rate it was not so. I think I am right in saying that the allotted days were first invented in 1902. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! No!"] I will leave that point, and I will come to the nature of the Vote on Account and the propriety of making it long or short, large or small in amount. Up till 1896 the habit was to take a very small Vote on Account for a very short period, £3,000,000 to £5,000,000 for four or five weeks. In my opinion, as one who has a certain amount of financial purity in his composition I think that is the right method, because what is a Vote on Account? It really is an anticipation of the grants for the Crown in Supply. It is not required for the Army or the Navy, because for those two Services you get a large amount voted in Vote 1 or Vote 10, as the case may be, and you can transfer one part of the expenditure to another. Therefore, if you once get a great lump sum either for the Army or the Navy you have money in your pocket to carry on the services. That is not so in the Civil Service, since for the Civil Service there is no large lump sum taken in a single Vote, and even if there were there is not the same power of taking a portion from one part and putting it on to another. I do not say there is no power, but in order to do so you have to get Treasury sanction. That is the reason for the Vote on Account.

Up till 1896 the practice was £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 for from four to six weeks. In 1897 the Vote on Account was raised to £10,000,000 and was for sixteen weeks, and in 1903, when the shadows of death were falling over the Administration of which I am speaking, it was raised from £4,000,000 to £21,000,000, and from four weeks to twenty-one weeks. I protested against it at the time. I pointed out that the lengthening of the period and the increasing of the amount of the Vote in Supply tended to deprive, and materially deprive, the House of Commons of its control over the finances of the country. I said then, as I venture to say now, that the only way by which the House of Commons could retain control over the finances and inspire some respect in a Ministry is to insist upon the Vote on Account being for a short period and for a relatively small amount. I observe that last year the Vote on Account was for £26,000,000 and for twenty-four weeks, and this year, to my very great gratification. His Majesty's Government have returned to what I consider the true principles of finance, and they have placed before this House a Vote on Account for a small amount and extending over a short period. What is the complaint? Why not? Surely we have been long enough under the rule of the late Government, we have been long enough committed by them to every kind of financial enormity, and atrocity, and impropriety. It cannot become eternal with us. There must come a time when a Government with some conscience, like the present Government says to itself: "There is great trouble in the finances, there are some complications, there is some confusion, but at any rate we will do what we can, and we shall keep the Vote on Account for a small amount and for a short period."

I comprehend that the whole objection of the right hon. Gentleman opposite lies upon the assumption that His Majesty's Government is not going to last six weeks after 31st March. I venture to think that is a very gratuitous assumption, and whether his prophecy comes to pass or not, I do not think he himself will take very much part in bringing it to pass, nor any of the Gentlemen I see on that Bench. It will require another leader from another clime before that is achieved. But has the right hon. Gentleman reflected that there is a possibility His Majesty's Government may still be in office on 15th May. If so, and if there then be confusion in the finances owing to the Vote on Account being run out, the difficulty will be the difficulty of His Majesty's Government. It is they who will again feel the want of money, but they will again, instead of waiting five, six or seven months, as the Government of the right hon. Gentleman did, after that six weeks, come, as they should come to the House of Commons for further Supply, and the House, I have no doubt, will cheerfully grant it.

Mr. F. E. SMITH

I desire to add an observation on the subject of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat. He has told us at considerable length that the view he takes is an entirely sanguine one as to the precise moment of the decease of the Government. Those considerations have never elicited on these benches the same excitement, or the same anticipation, as they have on the benches opposite. It is in their own party organs, and among their own supporters below the Gangway on both sides of the House, that we have these warnings of their instant decease, and that they have long since passed the time when any self-respecting Government could continue in existence. But it is unnecessary to examine the precedents with the care with which the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) has done it, because the defence of the Government is not based upon that ground at all. The case made on behalf of the Government by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not that we have here a healthy reversion to a more convenient and salutary practice at all. The case made—which was cheered so loudly from the benches opposite—is that some special emergency has arisen which makes it right and necessary to do what it has not been right and necessary to do in the last four years. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman by the side of the Chancellor of the Exchequer readily assents to that. Then do not let Ministers cheer the attempts made from behind them to establish the proposition that this course has been adopted by a single reference to general grounds of financial convenience. We know then where we are. This course has been adopted without any reference at all to the considerations of financial convenience which played so large a part in the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bowles). It has been brought to the attention of the House in a covert manner as part of the scheme of the Government for dealing with the House of Lords in the crisis which has arisen between the two Houses. In other words, it is one step and one stage in the policy of evasion and chicanery which the Government has been pursuing.

The hon. Member for King's Lynn says that the treatment which the Budget received in another place was dictated from Birmingham. That it was unreservedly approved from Birmingham I gladly admit, and I rejoice and take pride in that recognition. But what is the reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of castigating the House of Lords for the step they have taken, are adopting all these kinds of backstair and subordinate methods. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone listening to me as to the reason why these illicit and subordinate methods are adopted by the Government. They are adopted because their lives hang on a moment's purchase. They are trying to make a deal with Irish Members below the Gangway, and their one obsession is that the Budget may not be defeated on the floor of the House of Commons, as they well know it would be if they introduced it to-morrow. Why sneer at Birmingham? Or let me put it this way: Why should democrats sneer at Birmingham? The only justification for sneering at Birmingham is that Birmingham was more successful in diagnosing the probable view of the democracy than hon. Gentlemen opposite were. Everyone knows that if the Budget proposals were submitted at the present moment to the House of Commons they would be rejected and the action of the House of Lords vindicated. It is because the Government know that and dare not introduce their Budget—

The CHAIRMAN

I do not quite see what these remarks have to do with the matter under discussion.

Mr. F. E. SMITH

I will conclude my observations by saying that it is well within the knowledge of every Member of the House who faces the facts without concealment that the only reason why a frontal attack is not made on the House of Lords and that these indirect and subterranean methods are adopted is, that right hon. Gentlemen opposite know that if a frontal attack were made, they would be immediately defeated. In the belief that these methods of dealing with the House are not straightforwardly intended on the part of the Government, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Lord H. CECIL

The Government having taken an unprecedented course, are defending it with unprecedented discourtesy. I do not think that such a proceeding has ever been witnessed as that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when faced by a Motion to report progress, should remain in his seat and not offer to the House any defence of the conduct of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that the House of Commons sits here to do his bidding, and that he is entitled to take no part in its proceedings unless it suits him. He ought to follow the precedents of men much more eminent than himself, and reply to a Motion made by a Member of the House in proper course and at the proper time. The right hon. Gentleman has announced—why it was not announced by the Prime Minister I cannot conjecture, but for some unknown reason the Prime Minister is absent—a change in public policy of the gravest possible character. I do not think it is possible to overrate the gravity of the statement which has been made this afternoon. It appears to be the case that the Government contemplate, in the event of their being turned out of office, advising the House to refuse Supplies to the Crown at a later period of the Session. I brush aside as an irrelevant pretence, which no one affects to believe, and which no one can be assumed to believe, the doctrine that it is a more convenient course to have a Vote on Account for five or six weeks.

Mr. THOMAS LOUGH

Is it in order to discuss upon this new Motion the question which was before the House a few moments ago?

The CHAIRMAN

When a Motion to report Progress is made the arguments have to be relevant to that. I was waiting to see what the Noble Lord was going to say.

Lord H. CECIL

My argument is relevant to the Motion, because I think it is improper that the Committee should proceed to vote until the Government have made a better justification of the peculiar character of the Vote now before the Committee. It is evidently contemplated that at a later period supplies should be refused. It has indeed been pretended that it is a more convenient course, but I think that has been sufficiently exposed. To use the limited time which under the Rules of the House is allotted to Supply for the purpose of passing a second Vote on Account cannot be a convenient course.

Mr. LOUGH

I submit with great respect that the Noble Lord is pursuing a most inconvenient course. On the Motion for adjournment he is discussing the main question. Many of us wish to speak on that, but I submit it is out of order to do so while the Motion to report Progress is before the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN

The Motion to report Progress was moved to call attention to the action of the Government in proposing the Vote on Account in this form, and the Noble Lord's remarks seem to me perfectly relevant.

Lord H. CECIL

As far as I understand the procedure which the law requires it will also be necessary to bring in and pass through all its stages a second Consolidated Fund Bill. No one can pretend that that is a convenient course. I assume, therefore, that that is merely a pretence. I would entreat the Government to give up this habit of putting forward arguments in which no one believes, and which are set up for the moment to give a little graceful colour to what they think otherwise is too ugly for the public eye. The true bottom of this matter is that the Government intend at a later stage of the Session, if they are turned out of office, to ask the House of Commons to refuse Supplies to the Crown. It is unnecessary to say that such a course has never been taken since the reign of Charles I. The course which the Government, apparently, are now menacing has never been taken within the constitutional period of English history. [An HON. MEMBER made a remark which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.] The hon. Member apparently looks back with satisfaction to the period of the Great Rebellion. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope, then, that hon. Members will not pretend in future that they are the advocates of constitutional conservatism. I do not myself believe that, when it comes to the point, the courage of the Government will equal their present audacity, and that they will actually take the course which is now threatened. It is a matter of the utmost gravity that such a threat should be made at all. One is almost tired of pointing out that the assurances of the Government have no value, but are thrown on the scrap heap whenever they have served their purpose. This very course of refusing Supplies received elaborate notice from the Home Secretary at an earlier period of the Session, when he dealt with the matter in a very proper manner and used statesmanlike language It now appears that that language is wholly repudiated by his colleagues. He said on 22nd February:— A refusal of Supply by the House of Commons would unquestionably produce an instantaneous dead-look. There is no doubt about that. The majority of the House possesses that power at the present time, but I do not think any responsible Member of the House, wherever he may sit, would recommend the House to exercise their power of refusing the necessary Supplies. Do the Government assent to that? Then they do not contemplate that course. Then what becomes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's phrase about "controlling the Executive"? Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when it suits his convenience to reply to criticisms, will deal with that point. The Home Secretary went on to say:— That is a weapon which, in bygone days, could be directed against other estates of the Realm. Do the Government intend to direct that weapon against other estates of the Realm? Is that their plan? Why not give the usual Supplies? Why not follow the convenient course of the past? The Government are asking for a limited Supply evidently with a view to subsequent refusal. It cannot be seriously contended that it is a more convenient course that the House of Commons, with a limited time allotted to Supply, should do the same work twice over at short intervals. That is evidently an unreal contention. What remains? The case of constitutional control over the Executive, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He proposes to exercise control—not, of course, if he is in office; he will probably think then the less control the better—but if he is out of office, he proposes to exercise by means of Supply a hitherto unprecedented control of the Executive. What control does he propose to exercise? How does he propose to exercise it? Evidently by refusing the Supplies which will then be necessary. Is that a weapon which can be directed against other estates of the Realm? That is a proper question to which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reply. Finally, the Home Secretary went on to say: The refusal of Supply to meet the necessary expense of the Navy, the Army, of the Post Office, of school teachers, of old age pensions, and of the Civil Service, would bring our system of civilised society to abrupt and complete chaos. No one outside the limits of a lunatic asylum would offer the obselete course the Government are recommending the House to-day.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

made an observation inaudible in the Press Gallery.

Lord HUGH CECIL

Yes, you are taking your new course. The Government were in office for four years, and each Session they recommended the taking of Supply for four or five months. The right hon. Gentleman pretends that that is an inconvenient course now. He did not think so in previous Sessions. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman does not really think it an inconvenient course. What, then, does he mean? Is it the intention to refuse Supplies in the future? There can be no other motive! In the words of his colleague, the course projected "Will bring our system of civilised society to complete and abrupt chaos." Is it not manifest that the Government are playing fast and loose with the very foundations of the Constitution? They are entering upon a campaign which can only be described in the simplest language as revolutionary, and they are defending and sheltering it under all sorts of excuses and pretences. Their design is to wreck the Constitution at all hazards. That really is in truth the issue between the two parties at the present time. We on this side of the House are wishful to work the Constitution; they desire to use obsolete powers. [Laughter.] Those were the words used by the Home Secretary.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I can only admire the Noble Lord's condemnation of obsolete powers.

Lord HUGH CECIL

If the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the Constitution is greater than it appears to be he will know that no obsolete powers have been used either in this place or the other. I have known the right hon. Gentleman for a long time, and can only hope that he will have accurate views on constitutional laws. [Laughter.] The issue is not to be set aside by Ministerial laughter. It really is a very grave matter that the Government should have brought the country into the position in which it finds itself, and that they should be even now threatening to throw the whole fabric of Government into chaos in order to carry out a party game which they are playing. It is an unscrupulous and the most unconstitutional course that any Ministry or body of public men have taken over the Parliamentary history of England. It is right that an immediate protest should be made by the Opposition, in order that we, at any rate, may draw public attention to what is going forward, and wash our hands of all responsibility.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

The Noble Lord is really very fond of delivering lectures to individual Members of this House, to Ministers, and to parties. In this case he seems to be under the impression that the Constitution began in 1896. What does he complain of? He complains that we have reverted to a practice which was the unbroken practice of Parliament prior to 1896. That is what we are doing. What is all this fuss about? We are charged with evasion, chicanery, backstairs methods, and with something that is too ugly for the public eye. Why? Because we have reverted to the practice which Lord Salisbury in his Government of 1896 practised for six years.

Lord HUGH CECIL

Under quite different conditions.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Was he guilty of backstairs methods, chicanery, evasion? Was he guilty of doing things not fit for publication because he asked for a Vote on Account for a month instead of asking for four or five months? That is really what it is. The Noble Lord delivers a lecture to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the Constitution. Really if he goes back a little beyond 1896 he will find that this is the unbroken practice of Parliament. What does it mean? Supply is the only weapon which the House of Commons has to control the Executive. It is on a Motion, when Supply is to be voted, if the House of Commons wants either to criticise the conduct of individual Ministers, the Ministry as a whole, or the policy of the Government that it has that opportunity. The only way in which the House can do it is by means of Supply. Sometimes it is done by saying we reduce the amount by £100. That is the method of the House for withholding Supplies. And their refusal to pay is bringing the whole machinery of Government to a standstill. Really the Noble Lord ought to understand what is really the practice of the Constitution before he delivers these elaborate lectures as to what the practice, policy, and spirit of the Constitution is. I am amazed at the attitude of the Opposition, for what we are proposing will give the Opposition the power in two months' time to have an expression of opinion from the House of Commons upon the con duct and policy of Ministers of the Government. Because, I say, we are adding to their opportunity for criticism, we are guilty of back-stairs' influence and other things. I should have thought, in view of the very poor opinion some hon. Members hold of Ministers, that they would have welcomed every opportunity for criticising them. We are giving the Noble Lord an additional opportunity. What does he do? Instead of thanking us, he abuses us for giving him that opportunity. Perhaps such a bad use has been made of the opportunities given up to the present that I really think we would be perfectly right in limiting these opportunities as much as possible. What is the difference really between the two parties here? The Noble Lord and his Friends want to get on with out the financial control of the House of Commons. We want to get on without the financial interference of the House of Lords. That is the real difference between us. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear. hear."] I am glad to say that there is a Friend opposite who agrees with that very fair statement of the difference between, us. At any rate, there is one man who is candid enough to admit that that is his policy. Why should they complain? The Noble Lord for a whole week has been saying that we have not got the cash for the purpose of paying these Supplies. Very well! We are limiting the amount which we are voting to the cash we have in hand. That is not a bad practice. It is what every business community practices. If the Noble Lord were Chancellor of the Exchequer he would know perfectly well that all the money I have got is what I have said, and it is just enough for six weeks.

An HON. MEMBER

What about the Income Tax?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

The Income Tax is not the only tax.

Another HON. MEMBER

It is the main one.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

It is not by any means the main one. If hon. Gentleman opposite had allowed the Budget to go through there would have been no trouble at all about any of the taxes. The Noble Lord complains that there has been no explanation. There is only one explanation, and that is that we think it is very desirable that we should revert to the practice of Parliament before the year 18–. Well, the hon. and learned Member is, comparatively speaking, a new Member. I was here in 1896, and I can assure him that all the great financial authorities of the House, like the late Sir William Harcourt, were exceedingly shocked at the departure which was made at that time. They protested in the strongest possible manner against it. My recollection is that Lord Courtney, also a great authority, protested against it, though I am not quite clear about that.

Mr. F. E. SMITH

My suggestion was that the Government anticipated at that period they would possibly have been defeated on the Budget, and wishes us to be exposed to these difficulties, and not themselves.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Well, I do not mind saying to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I think it would be a very good thing if they had had the opportunity of clearing up the difficulties which they created. They are responsible for these difficulties. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the country," and, "Old Age Pensions?"] How does it affect the country if we vote the money to carry on the business of the country until 13th May, and that we should come to the House of Commons before that date and ask for more money—whichever Government is in power—and so give the opportunities to the House of Commons to express an opinion on the matter? I can assure hon. Members opposite, who say they really represent the views of the country, and the finance of the country, that the House of Commons, which really represents the country, will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the financial situation for the time being. As a matter of fact, it is the only course we could have adopted, and I venture to say it is the only course that any Government, having a full sense of its responsibilities under the very unusual conditions which prevail at the present moment, could take. There is the Opposition, who surely ought to have every opportunity to criticise the finance, and their opportunities for criticism will be multiplied. But that they should protest against it is a thing to me absolutely unheard of.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The right hon. Gentleman offers two justifications for the course that the Government have taken. The one is that they are really following a sounder constitutional practice than that which has prevailed for the last fourteen years. That is the most flimsy excuse which hon. Gentlemen opposite could have presented to the mind of anyone, so flimsy that I am astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have thought it worth while to offer. I have already pointed out—and I am not going to repeat myself—that at the time when this practice prevailed the House had no other opportunity of discussing Supply at regular intervals throughout the Session. That opportunity is now provided by our Supply Rules, and the House gains nothing by having a succession of Votes on Account, and a succession of Consolidated Fund Bills, unless the majority of the House wishes to prevent the Government being carried on. It is the more absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to press that explanation upon the House, because in another sentence he destroys it altogether. He does not pretend, in the rest of his speech, that the Government have been dying to take this course for four years, and have been prevented by untoward circumstances. He does not pretend that they are going to take it in the future. He only says that in the month of May circumstances will be such, so peculiar, and so critical, that it is necessary that the Government should be enabled to exist in office without giving up office, and that we shall have a new Consolidated Fund Bill and a new Vote for the Navy in the course of that month. What does that mean? It means, as my hon. Friend says, that in the view of the Government circumstances may arise in which they may desire to exercise the power of refusing Supplies, and so producing the chaotical confusion of which the Home Secretary spoke the other night. But, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, why do the Opposition object to that which gives them one more opportunity to attack the Government? If they are in office and we desire to have a discussion the Vote for the First Lord of the Treasury's salary could be put down, and no First Lord of the Treasury would refuse such a request coming from the Opposition. We should get our opportunity, and a very proper opportunity if we desired it, to express dissatisfaction with Ministers as a whole.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that by putting down a Vote for the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury he could impugn the policy of the Ministry?

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Yes, certainly.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Impugn the policy of the Government upon the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury? You could impugn anything that was relevant to the Treasury or to the work done by the First Lord at the Treasury, but by a Vote on Account you could not impugn the whole policy of the Government.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I say, with all respect to him, that he is mistaken. On the Vote for the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury you could impugn anything that he has done in his official capacity.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Oh, that is nothing.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Well, that is a novel doctrine. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says what the First Lord of the Treasury does in his official capacity is nothing.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me. The First Lord of the Treasury is the nominal head of the Treasury, but the Treasury is not run by him. As Prime Minister he is the head of the Government, but what is strictly relevant to the office of First Lord of the Treasury is the Treasury and not the policy of the Government. It is not because he is First Lord of the Treasury that he is Prime Minister, and therefore you cannot impugn the policy of the Government purely because he is First Lord of the Treasury.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I differ from the right hon. Gentleman. I have seen it done since I have been in this House—

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

When?

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I cannot give the reference across the floor of the House, but, at any rate, we all know that if we wanted to challenge the policy of the Prime Minister we could do it by moving to reduce his salary. However, it is not worth while quarrelling over the matter. Even if the Chancellor were right upon this narrow point, if we could discuss nothing upon the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury, but such patronage as he exercises at the Treasury, or such particular documents as for convenience he may in his official capacity see or sign, I agree you could discuss nothing upon such a Vote, not even instance the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, which has been discussed for years. But that is all besides the issue, except in so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer tries to convey that he is really conferring a favour upon the Opposition by giving them an opportunity of attacking the Government which they would not otherwise have had. If a Motion for the reduction of the salary of the First Lord is not wide enough a Motion of want of confidence in the Government would always secure such opportunity when given notice of by responsible persons. But I regret I spent any time in controversy with the right hon. Gentleman upon that subject; it is really not important. That is not the object of the Government; they do not pretend it is their object; their object is to retain control of the Executive by the Government up to the middle of May, and the way they propose to exercise that is by refusing Supplies to the Government of the day should the occasion arise. They are not going to refuse Supplies to themselves, and therefore they are contemplating a situation in which they will resign, and in which another Government will have taken office. For what purpose could that Government have taken office except to dissolve with the least possible delay and once again to appeal to the country? The whole object of the Government is to make it impossible for their successors in office to take an appeal to the country without delay. That is the whole object. If the Government remain in office this is pure waste of time. If the Government go out of office it enables them to prevent another Government which comes in making an immediate appeal to the country. I hope the country will notice that, with all their brave talk, the last thing in the world this Government wants to do is to allow the country an opportunity of pronouncing upon their conduct.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR

May I, as a Member of a permanent minority in the House, be permitted to say a few words from that point of view with regard to the position of the Government? I think, perhaps, I may claim a further right to speak upon this question, for the reason that a very strong and a very effective protest had at one time to be made from these benches with regard to the policy of proposing large Votes on Account. On 4th March, 1901, the Government then in office, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester was a Member, brought in a Vote on Account for the sum of £17,000,000, and in order to make the Committee realise the good old times in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did such things quickly, I may inform them that this Vote for £17,000,000 was passed by the Closure in one evening of Parliamentary time. That did not exhaust the case. Upon that Vote of £17,000,000, of course, there were entered nearly all the great Departments of the State, and by arrangements which have to be made on all those occasions a certain Vote was given priority, namely, the Vote upon Education in England. I do not criticise the Gentlemen who took part in the discussion, but it was found so important that it occupied every moment of the time of the House that evening. What happened? Of this £17,000,000 of money, £2,000,000 were Irish expenditure, and of that expenditure £600,000 were for the purposes of the armed police force, which is the garrison in Ireland. When an Irish Member got up to attempt to say a word upon these £2,000,000 of taxation on Ireland extending over all Irish administration, the then Leader of the House, the present Leader of the Opposition, moved the Closure. That was followed by a very remarkable and rather painful scene. Some Members of the Irish party refused to vote, and, according to the Rules of the House in those days, they were named to the Speaker and ordered to leave the House, and as they refused to do so they had to be taken out by the police, who were brought into the House for the purpose. One result of that little scene may not, I think, be unwelcome to some Members of this House, and especially to the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). Before that scene a Member was compelled to vote either in one Lobby or another, or else leave the House. Now a Member has only to retain his seat if he does not wish to vote, and I daresay that will be very convenient to the Noble Lord when his party are producing a Tariff Re-form Budget. That scene of 4th March, 1901, will help to bring to the attention of the House the state in which the rights and privileges of this Assembly were under the saturnine sway of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

For my part I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has returned to constitutional precedents of the past in keeping in his possession all those large Votes on Account that for a lengthened period of time were followed by every great Liberal statesman in this House. Sir William Harcourt opposed these lengthened Votes on Account; Mr. Gladstone was a determined and inveterate enemy of large Votes on Account; and it is astonishing to me to hear Gentlemen who claim to be Constitutionalists complaining that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is keeping the control of this House over the finance of the country. What is finance? It is the instrument by which the House of Commons is able to control the Executive and the policy of the nation, and when the Noble Lord goes back to the days of Charles Stuart I have to tell him that I have seen Governments of his own party that were almost as regardless as Charles I. was of the rights and liberties of the people and of control over finance. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) took part in the Debate which followed the expulsion of the Irish Members in March, 1901, and I cannot put the case better than by quoting just one sentence from his speech in that Debate. He said:— The fact is that there has been on the part of the Government and the majority of the House for a number of years a deliberate attempt to put on foot a movement to stifle the voice of independent criticism on the Estimates, and to reduce to absolute nullity what is the first and greatest constitutional right of this House, namely, the discussion of grievances before the voting on Supplies. I must recall to some Members of the Committee the important part which in the memory of some older Members the discussion of Supply took in our proceedings. How was the Government of Lord Rosebery in 1895 put out of office? It was put out of office by a vote on a small item for the War Office for cordite. I will not say it was put out on false pretences. Does any man who studies the Constitution and the rules and powers of this Assembly not know that as long as you hold the finances in your hand you control the Ministry and its policy? And when you give away control of the finances you make the Executive independent of the House of Commons, which is the voice and the creation of the people and the nation. Hon. Gentlemen are apparently very alarmed that they may come into office at a time when this Vote on Account will come to an end. I observe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire used in rapid succession two self-destructive arguments. He stated that the effect of the Government holding back finance would be to compel their successors to go immediately to the country.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

To prevent them going immediately to the country.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR

Well, I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would not have made that complaint against the Government. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a terrible picture of the chaos and the difficulties which the new Government would have to face. Why, the bigger the deficit the more the right hon. Gentleman ought to enjoy it, because the bigger the deficit the bigger is the opportunity for a Tariff Reform Budget which will make the foreigner pay. For my part I think the Government have adopted the right policy. It is not their business, nor the business of the House of Commons, to make it easy for any body of men, either in this House or elsewhere, to interfere with the sacred, and for centuries the undisputed right of this House to have the sole control of the finances of this country.

Mr. THOMAS LOUGH

I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the excellent innovation he has made in our practice. The charge made against him is that he has come to the House of Commons oftener than is necessary in regard to financial matters. My object in rising is to ask a question as to the announcement which has been made with regard to the Naval Estimates. I wish to ask whether in view of the postponement of Vote 1 he will give us some assurance that that course will not interfere in any way with us raising the question of this increase in the Navy Estimates at the earliest opportunity?

The CHAIRMAN

That has nothing to do with this Debate.

Mr. LOUGH

But the announcement was made at the commencement of this Debate by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The CHAIRMAN

Yes, but that question cannot be discussed now, and it does not arise on these Estimates.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lough) has added his congratulations to the Government for reverting to a procedure which will give the House of Commons more opportunities of discussing finance.

Mr. LOUGH

Hear, hear.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am glad to hear that I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman. All I have to say is that evidently he does not know much about the Rules of the House, or he would not make that remark. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has also made a similar error. The right hon. Gentleman asks how is it that the Opposition are annoyed, because we are going to give more opportunities for discussing finance? I would like to refer the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lough) to Sub-section 2 of Standing Order 15, which provides:— Not more than twenty days, being days before the 5th of August, shall be allotted for the consideration of the Annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account. The number of days that will be given is twenty, neither more nor less, unless three additional days are asked for later. Consequently, whether we have a Vote on Account now or afterwards will make no difference, because twenty days will have to be given, including Votes on Account. Consequently, the main argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer really has no existence at all. The right hon. Gentleman said that on 13th May the House would have an opportunity of again discussing the Vote on Account for the Civil Service Estimates. That is the Friday before Whit Sunday, and we have already been told that the House is going to adjourn for a longer Recess than usual at Whitsuntide. Consequently, on 13th May the House will not be sitting, and there will be no further opportunity to grant a Vote on Account, and the natural consequence must be that there will be no money to pay for the various items which are included in this Vote on Account. We shall not come back until 14th or 15th May, and between 13th May and the day we come back there will be financial chaos. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really been desirous of going back to the precedent which has been alluded to, he could have made his Vote on Account for eight weeks, which would have covered the Whitsuntide holidays. I have never heard a weaker defence put before the House of Commons by a person so capable as the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that we are bound to give twenty days to Supply, and, therefore, this proposal will not increase by a single moment the time to be devoted to financial matters, and it is really imposing upon the ignorance of the House to pretend that by this proposal the right hon. Gentleman is really desirous of giving additional facilities to discuss finance He is desirous of doing nothing except to arrange that when the General Election comes there will be confusion and chaos, and it will be said that that state of things has been caused by another place. I claim that the chaos will have been caused by the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall give my vote on this occasion with greater satisfaction than I have ever given a vote before.

Mr. JAMES F. HOPE

The situation with which we are now confronted must have arisen on former occasions in the days when a short time Vote on Account has been taken. This happened in the year 1886, when Mr. Gladstone's Government was in power, and it happened again in 1895. How was the situation met in 1886 and 1895? On both those occasions I presume some provision was made, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what that provision was, and whether the retiring Government did not consent to a further Vote on Account being taken?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

My own recollection is that there was a further Vote on Account, but I should not like to give a definite answer without looking the matter up. I remember the question was raised because I was a Member of the House at the time. May I point out that in the Home Rule Parliament Votes on Account were taken by the Liberal Government for two months. They were very hard pressed for time, but notwithstanding that they only took Votes for two months; after that they came back and asked for another Vote, and the Opposition thought they were taking the right course. May I also point out that the Liberal Government of 1880 proposed to get a Vote on Account for three months, but there was so much opposition raised to it, not only by the Tory Opposition, but also by Irish Members and Labour Members that the Government had to abandon that course, and they reduced the period from three months to two months. Therefore, to talk about this proposal being a violent departure from precedent is perfectly ridiculous. Upon a point of Order I should like to ask whether the whole policy of the Government can be arraigned upon the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury. I submit that only those questions can be raised which are absolutely relevant to his office in the Treasury, I mean such formal matters as he is cognisant of merely as First Lord of the Treasury, and that his general administration as the head of the Government cannot be reviewed or arraigned upon his salary.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I would like to ask whether it is in order to discuss anything on a Vote on Account which is not included in that Vote? I submit that it is obviously impossible to discuss Navy Estimates upon a Civil Service Vote on Account, because there is no money for the Navy included in the Vote. The only money included for the First Lord of the Treasury, and the other Members of the Government in a Vote on Account is the particular portions of the salaries of the Ministers. If, therefore, you can discuss their general conduct on a Vote on Account you can equally discuss their general conduct on the Vote for their salaries.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

The point in dispute, I think, is one which can only be settled by the Chair. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman is that the policy of the Government can be discussed on the Vote for the salary of the Prime Minister. That is what I challenged at the time, and I invite the ruling of the Chair on that important question.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

My point is that you cannot discuss on a Vote on Account anything which is not included in it.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I never said you could.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman did say that. If you can discuss the conduct of the Government on a Vote on Account it is because the salaries are included in it. On the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty you can discuss the matters which relate to his Department only, but on the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury you have always been able to take a much wider view.

The CHAIRMAN

I much prefer to answer such questions when they arise. If it is any convenience, however, I will give the answer in the words of a predecessor of mine in the Chair, who said:— The only thing for which the Prime Minister is answerable is some administrative act clone by him as First Lord of the Treasury. That is, in Supply, when the Treasury Vote is considered. With regard to what can be raised upon a Vote on Account only those questions can be dealt with contained in the Votes under discussion.

Lord HUGH CECIL

Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he is in a position to promise that if he is a Member of the Government in future the precedent he is setting this year will always be followed, and not the precedent of previous years?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I should just like to correct one statement I made. I said, in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), that the Vote on Account taken by the Home Rule Government was for two months. It was for one month to begin with—in 1886. Really, if the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) were in my place, would he answer a question of that kind as to what he would do? He must remember that the question ought to be addressed to the Prime Minister, but even if the Prime Minister were here he would not say what he would be prepared to do in future years. This is a proposal we submit to Parliament to deal with this particular financial position.

Lord HUGH CECIL

If I were in the place of the right hon. Gentleman, I certainly should not put forward arguments and excuses which are irrelevant.

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

The horn Member for Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) spoke just now as if the question of Supply had been in some sense ignored since 1896. The fact is, if these frequent Votes on Account are to come into existence again, many sections of the House, and probably the Irish Members, would lose a day for dealing with one of the special subjects they desire to discuss in this House, and which they can do better on the Vote than on a general Vote on Account. When these suggestions are made that we should again and again come to the House for Votes on Account I think we ought to remember that they are put forward by a Government which, during the time it has been in office has consistently refused any extra days for Supply, though those extra days were given in the time of their predecessors. We are therefore extremely limited in the number of days on which the various subjects, and especially Civil Service subjects, can be discussed in any detail in this House, and I think it ought clearly to be expressed again that the new rule of Supply, which gave the opportunity to the Opposition of always bringing forward the most debateable point in Supply at the earliest possible moment really takes away all the arguments brought before us in connection with the days of Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt, Lord Courtney, or anybody else. I only rose to make quite plain, to those who perhaps have not been in the House, both sides of the Rules. I think it is just as instructive to point out how rapidly the Government have altered their policy. Apparently this policy was not in existence when they put down the Army Vote, because on that occasion they took sufficient money to carry them on a longer time than six weeks. It appears to me the change of policy must be due to some form of negotiations of which we are ignorant, and which have taken place since the discussion of the Army Estimates. It is always interesting to call attention to. these matters. They come extremely rapidly, and I think we ought to mark time as they pass.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Both statements of the hon. Gentleman are absolutely without warrant. His first statement was that there has been some change of policy since the Army Estimates were put down. This was decided before the Army Estimates were put down.

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

Why was the amount taken for the Army?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Because we want to take the amount for six weeks. That is stated on the face of the document circulated. This is the way in which we have managed to ask the House of Commons to sanction Supply for six weeks.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say he is only taking six weeks' Supply for the Army?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

It is a Supply of six weeks to the Treasury to deal with all the demands upon it.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Is it not more than six weeks' Supply for the Army? That is a perfectly plain question. What we have asserted is that you have taken, not six weeks, but a longer Supply for the Army, whilst in the case of the Navy you deliberately limit it to six weeks. Why is there this difference of treatment if, as the right hon. Gentleman says, nothing has occurred in the interval between the presentation of the one and the other?

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

I only wanted to ask whether it is not the fact that money voted under Vote 1 on the first day of Supply on the Army Estimates has, in other years, been sufficient to carry on the Government for very much more than four months?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

That is the same question put in another form, and, therefore, I will address myself to the right hon. Gentleman. He asked why we take for the

Navy six weeks' Supply and for the Civil Service a six weeks' Vote, when for the Army we take a Vote which undoubtedly goes beyond six weeks. It is for the simple reason that you have to take some Vote or other, and it is very difficult to take a Vote which does run to six weeks. If there was a vote on the Army which exactly ran to that figure, we would have taken that Vote, but we had to take a Vote which enabled us to discuss the whole question of the Army, and we took the only Vote for the purpose. We have fitted the thing so as to enable the House of Commons to have general control over the Executive.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Would not Vote A have given us the opportunity for a general discussion?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

It would not have given us cash; that is the difference between the right hon. Gentleman and our-selves. Vote A would not have given us any money for the men. We had to put down some Vote which would give us money, inasmuch as we want to pay the Army, see everybody is paid in proper time, and that there is no delay in payment. We had, therefore, to put down a Vote which involves cash, and we put down that Vote which was the only one to suit the circumstances. The second statement made by the hon. Gentlemen the Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy)—and it is not the first time it has been made in the course of this Debate—was that there have been some negotiations which have led to a change of policy. There is absolutely not a shred of foundation for that statement. The Government have done this entirely on their own initiative, without any negotiations on the subject, because they thought it was suitable to the position.

Question put, "That the Chairman do now report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 225.

Division No. 7.] AYES. [5.40 p.m.
Adam, Major William A. Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.) Butcher, John George (York)
Arbuthnot, Gerald A. Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.)
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Beckett, Hon. William Gervase Carlile, Edward Hildred
Arkwright, John Stanhope Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Attenborough, Walter Annis Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Cator, John
Baird, John Lawrence Bird, Alfred Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Boyle, W. Lewis. (Norfolk, Mid) Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Boyton, James Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Brackenbury, Henry Langton Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.) Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Barnston, Harry Brassey, Capt. R. (Banbury) Clive, Percy Archer
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Bridgeman, William Clive Cooper, Captain Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall) Hope, Harry (Bute) Proby, Col. Douglas James
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Quitter, William Eley C.
Courthope, George Loyd Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Homer, Andrew Long Rankin, Sir James
Craik, Sir Henry Hume-Williams, William Ellis Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) Remnant, James Farquharson
Croft, Henry Page Jackson, Sir John (Devonport) Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven) Ridley, Samuel Ford
Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston) Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Duncannon, Viscount Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Rolleston, Sir John
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Kerry, Earl of Ronaldshay, Earl of
Faber, George D. (Clapham) Kimber, Sir Henry Rothschild, Lionel de
Falle, Bertram Godfray King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Sanderson, Lancelot
Fell, Arthur Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Finlay, Sir Robert Knight, Captain Eric Ayshtord Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Forster, Henry William Lawson, Hon. Harry Stanier, Seville
Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft) Lewisham, Viscount Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Foster, John K. (Coventry) Llewellyn, Major Venables Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Gardner, Ernest Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)
Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay) Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)
Goldsmith, Frank Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Strauss, Arthur
Gooch, Henry Cubitt Long, Rt. Hon. Walter Talbot, Lord Edmund
Goulding, Edward Alfred Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Thynne, Lord Alexander
Grant, J. A. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Greene, Walter Raymond Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwich) Tryon, Capt. George Clement
Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward Mackinder, Halford J. Tullibardine, Marquess of
Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Macmaster, Donald Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) M'Arthur, Charles Wheler, Granville C. H.
Hambro, Angus Valdemar Magnus, Sir Philip White, Maj. G. D. (Lancs. Southport)
Hamersley, Alfred St. George Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) Morpeth, Viscount Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.) Morrison, Captain James A. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Helmsley, Viscount Mount, William Arthur Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire) Newdegate, F. A. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Newton, Harry Kottingham Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury) Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Hills, John Waiter (Durham) Paget, Almeric Hugh TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Parkes, Ebenezer
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Perkins, Walter Frank
NOES.
Addison, Dr. Christopher Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hazleton, Richard
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Cory, Sir Clifford John Holme, Norval Watson
Agnew, George William Cowan, William Henry Hemmerde, Edward George
Ainsworth, John Stirling Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Alden, Percy Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Henry, Charles Solomon
Allen, Charles Peter Crosfield, Arthur H. Higham, John Sharp
Ashton, Thomas Gair Crossley, William J. Hindle, Frederick George
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. Cullinan, John Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Hodge, John
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hooper, Arthur George
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)
Barclay, Sir Thomas Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Barlow, Sir John Emmott Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Hudson, Walter
Barnes, George N. Doris, William Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Barton, William Fenwick, Charles Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Beale, William Phipson France, Gerald Ashburner Jowett, Frederick William
Bentham, George Jackson Furness, Sir Christopher Joyce, Michael
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Gelder, Sir William Alfred Keating, Matthew
Boland, John Pius Gibson, James Puckering Kelly, Edward
Bowerman, Charles W. Gill, Alfred Henry Kemp, Sir George
Bowles, Thomas Gibson Ginnell, Laurence King, Joseph (Somerset, North)
Brigg, Sir John Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Lambert, George
Brunner, John F. L. Greenwood, Granville George Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Grenfell, Cecil Alfred Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Lehmann, Rudolf C.
Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid) Guest, Capt. Hon. Frederick E. Lewis, John Herbert
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Hackett, John Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Byles, William Pollard Hancock, John George Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Barghs)
Chancellor, Henry George Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) M'Callum, John M.
Clough, William Harwood, George M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Clynes, John R. Haslam, James (Derbyshire) M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leics.)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Mallet, Charles Edward
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hayward, Evan Marks, George Croydon
Martin, Joseph Raffan, Peter Wilson Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Menzles, Sir Walter Rainy, Adam Rolland Twist, Henry
Middlebrook, William Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Molteno, Percy Alport Rees, John David Verney, Frederick William
Mooney, John J. Rendall, Athelstan Vivian, Henry
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Walsh, Stephen
Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) Walters, John Tudor
Muspratt, Max Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Neilson, Francis Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Wardle, George J.
Nolan, Joseph Robinson, Sidney Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Norton, Captain Cecil William Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Nuttall, Harry Roe, Sir Thomas Waterlow, David Sydney
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Watt, Henry A.
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) White, Sir George (Norfolk)
O'Grady, James Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
O'Kelly, James Scanlan, Thomas White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Palmer, Godfrey Mark Seddon, James. A. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Parker, James Halifax Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. Whitehouse, John Howard
Pearce, William Simon, John Allsebrook Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Pearson, Weetman H. M. Snowden, Philip Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wiles, Thomas
Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) Soares, Ernest Joseph Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)
Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke) Strachey, Sir Edward Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Pirie, Duncan V. Summers, James Woolley Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Pointer, Joseph Sutton, John E. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Pollard, Sir George H. Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Taylor, Theodore c. (Radcliffe) Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Power, Patrick Joseph Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Young, William (Perth, East)
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Thomas, James Henry (Derby) Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Primrose, Hon. Neil James Thorne, William (West Ham)
Pringle, William M. R. Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.
Radford, George Heynes Toulmin, George