SUPPLY PROCEDURE. (Hansard, 1 August 1916)

§ Mr. DILLON
I wish to raise a question about the Orders of the Day. I always understood that the settled custom was to put the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill as the first Order of the Day, or, at all events, not to put any contentious business before it. I notice that a cententious Bill, which may lead to some considerable discussion, is put as the first Order to-day, and the Consolidated Fund Bill as the second Order. It is a very bad precedent, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why it has been done?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Consolidated Fund Bill takes first place owing to Parliamentary tradition and custom, and if any notice had been given to us that any particular question was likely to be raised on the Bill, I should certainly have followed that custom.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
I gave you notice.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I will leave that aside for the moment.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
You have introduced a Bill to square me, at all events.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Yesterday we were going to take the Report of the Special Commissions Bill, which, I hoped, was not a contentious measure, nor do I think it is. There are only questions of detail. But I quite agree that the Consolidated Fund Bill ought to take first place, and, if the hon. Gentleman persists in his right, I will give way to the suggestion.

§ Mr. DILLON
I am very much obliged to the Prime Minister. I am a custodian of the old customs and Rules of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman having acknowledged that the Consolidated Fund Bill ought to come first, if he thinks the other Bill will not take very long I will not press my point. I want to raise a very important question on the Consolidated Fund Bill, but if there is any prospect of the other Bill getting through in the course of an hour or two, I will raise no difficulty, but I do not want to let the matter pass.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
Will the Prime Minister say whether he intends to give the time of the House to-morrow to the Second and Third Readings of the Bill to be presented to the House to-day by the Secretary of State for War, and which ought to have been presented eight weeks ago?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
It will not have the first place.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
When will the Second Reading be taken?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
We will put it down for to-morrow. I cannot help thinking that the Debate on the Special Commissions Bill will be concluded in a very short time. I think the outstanding points have been settled.

§ Mr. DILLON
I will not press the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEY
What will the business be on Thursday?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
The Colonial Office Vote.

§ Mr. CLANCY
Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the meaning of putting one of the two Bills relating to the destruction of property in Dublin on the Paper two days in succession, and then not going on with it?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
It will not be taken this week.

§ Mr. CLANCY
I understood from the Home Secretary it would be taken?

Mr. SAMUEL
No, Sir, not this week.

§ Mr. CLANCY
I do not understand why it should not be taken.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
The Attorney-General is not here.

§ Mr. S. MacNEILL
Why is he not here?

§ Mr. CLANCY
The right hon. Gentleman will admit, I think, that this is an urgent matter, and, therefore, why should not some arrangement be made to give precedence of other matters, which are not so urgent?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
It will be taken at the earliest available opportunity—I hope early next week.
Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing 55 Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed,"—[The Prime Minister.]

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Dawn to what Bill on, the Paper?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
To No. 6 (Trading With the Enemy (Copright—No. 2) Bill).

§ Sir F. BANBURY
That includes No. 4, which is a new Bill. There has already been one Bill of that description withdrawn in deference to requests made, and now No. 2 has been introduced. I do not think we ought to take that Bill after eleven o'clock at night.

§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)
We shall not take that after eleven o'clock at night.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I beg to move, "That for the purpose of concluding the Business of Supply for the present Session, thirteen days, either before or after the fifth day of August, shall be allotted under Standing Order 15 for the consideration of the annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account; and, as respects the present Session, that Standing Order shall effect as if in paragraph 7 of that Standing Order the twelfth day were substituted for the last day but one of the days so allotted, and as if in paragraph 8 of that Standing Order the thirteenth day were substituted for the twentieth day so allotted."
This Motion with regard to Supply arises in this way: Standing Order No. 15 provides that "not more than twenty days being days before the 5th August shall be allotted for the consideration of the annual Estimates." Last year, on the 14th of July, 1915, the House consented to a Motion substituting seventeen days for the twenty days provided under the Standing Order. This Motion is on the same lines as last year, and suggests thirteen days before or after the 5th of August, instead of the twenty provided by the Standing Order. The House may like to know how we stand in regard to this matter. During this Session we have had ten allotted days in Supply. We have had four other days in Supply, which for one reason or another have not been technically allotted days, and that makes fourteen days. Further, 56 we have had three Votes of Credit, taking five days, and four Consolidated Fund Bills, which have occupied eight days; so that altogether this Session we have had twenty-seven days of Supply, We have had four days occupied in getting Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy, Army and Civil Service Estimates, and adding those days we arrive at a total of thirty-one days which this Session have been devoted to Supply. To these thirty-one days we propose by this Resolution to add another three, making the total thirty-four days in all. The remaining topics for which hon. Members have asked for opportunities are the Colonial Office Vote, which we propose to take on Thursday, the Scottish Votes, and the salary of the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. In answer to some supplementary questions put yesterday that Vote is Class VI., Vote 7. There has also been some request for a discussion on the Treasury Vote. I do not know if further discussion is desired by any considerable number of Members. [An HON. MEMBER: "Very much!"] If so, they will have an opportunity. It is proposed, if the House agree to my Motion, that the Votes in Committee of Supply shall be taken on the twelfth day, and the Report on the thirteenth day. We do not propose to take the Appropriaton Bill during this portion of the Session. The House will see that the Standing Order provides by fixed procedure for not more than twenty days, but if this Motion is accepted we shall have devoted thirty-four days for that purpose during the present Session.

§ Mr. DILLON
I cannot accept for a moment the figures and calculation put forward by the Prime Minister. The effect of this Motion is to cut down the number of days allotted to Supply, and this has been done year by year since the War commenced. Twenty days was the minimum under the new rule when it was instituted. As the Prime Minister knows perfectly well, it used to be the universal custom to add to the twenty days every Session two or three extra days, and I do not think a Session passed without the addition of at least one or two extra days. It is perfectly natural that in a time of great pressure the days allotted to Supply should be somewhat curtailed, because during war time the business of the House is paralysed, and, in my opinion, too much paralysed. I think this House under the first pressure of the War allowed itself to be almost completely 57 wiped out of existence, but a great change has come over the spirit of the House, and it is no longer impressed with the idea that the Government are to be allowed to carry on the War sub silentio, without any criticism whatever. There is a spirit in the House of a very different character from that which prevailed during the early days of the War. I want to draw attention to the fact that during the whole of the last two years I do not think there has been a single day devoted to Irish Supply. I have come to the conclusion that if any section of hon. Members of this House, from motives of loyalty, refrain from demanding their rights, they get no credit whatever for their action. Although for the last two years we have had much to complain of, not only as regards the government of Ireland from a purely Irish point of view, but as regards the almost incredible blunders of the War Office and Government in dealing with Ireland and recruiting in that country, which was largely responsible for the Irish rebellion, we maintained silence, and although our right was established by long usage to have three days set apart every year for Irish Supply, we acquiesced in the total abrogation of our right, and the disappearance of Irish Supply days altogether. We did not ask for those days, and we have got very little credit for our action.
Now we are going to adopt a different course. For two whole years we have maintained silence and have never asked for a day for Irish Supply. We have made no complaints and we have got nothing but kicks, and the result has been a serious injury to our party and our influence in Ireland. We have been fighting your battles in Ireland to the best of our ability. It may have been a mistake on our part to forfeit our right of criticism as to the conduct of the Government. I think it was. I have often discussed this matter with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond), and our only motive in abstaining from discussion and maintaining silence was not to trouble the Government during the conduct of the War. We had in our hands abundant information as to the conduct of the War Office in Ireland which would undoubtedly have impressed this House, and we could have made it pretty hot for the Government, as was urged upon us fre- 58 quently, and this was a subject of constant discussion and consultation in the councils of our party. We thought we ought to have had a full dress Debate attacking the Government upon its policy in relation to the outrageous conduct of the War Office, which has muddled the war abroad, and there is no use in denying it. They have muddled the war at home as well, so far as Ireland is concerned, because it was the War Office and the Coalition Government that made the Irish rebellion. I tell you now that if the War Office and the Government had handled the Irish situation rightly you would have had at least twice the number of Irish soldiers fighting for you at the front, and you would have had a steady stream of recruits going forward with enthusiasm. I put it to the Prime Minister after the announcement made last night that the most patient people in the world will turn at last, and now that we have fully installed a Unionist Government in control of Ireland we must claim the full measure of our rights.
Whatever is done for the small remnant of this Session, we must insist on getting in the coming Session our full three days for Irish Supply. I do not know yet whether it is the intention of the chairman of our party to insist on a Debate on Irish administration during this Session. I do not think that opportunity could be denied us. I want to raise the question of Irish administration on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, which I think is a more suitable occasion, because if we have a Debate on Irish administration upon the salary of any Minister we might be ruled out of order, and it might be said that there is no Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench with any responsibility for the government of Ireland except the Prime Minister himself, if he has any responsibility. The really responsible man is Sir John Maxwell, and we shall have him on the gridiron tonight in the discussion upon the Appropriation Bill. That was the reason I raised the point as to precedence for the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill. We may have an opportunity of dealing with that subject to-night, and therefore it may not be necessary to insist upon a debate of Irish Supply. As a matter of fact, there are no Irish Ministers, for they have all disappeared, and we cannot get hold of anyone representing the Irish Government.
59 I desire to warn the Prime Minister that henceforth we shall insist upon returning to the old conditions and getting our old rights, namely, three days out of the twenty for Irish Supply. We cannot be expected to continue to impose upon ourselves the restraint which was have done for two whole years since the outbreak of this War. With regard to restraint, I think we can bear comparison with any other section of the Members of this House, for there is no body of men who, under such circumstances, have given the Government more fair play, although we were horribly treated by the Coalition Government, which was formed against our protests and behind our backs at a time when the Liberal party had for four years been maintained in office through our steady and loyal support. The Government did not think it worth their while to consult us in any way when they were altering the whole framework of the Government, and we were practically told that we were outside and had no interest in that matter.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
You were asked to join the Coalition Government!

§ Mr. DILLON
Yes, but could not join it. We never can join any Government, and the hon. Member knows it, until our country gets self-government. Everybody in the House knows that. I do not want to boast, but there are many men among our party who could have been in the Government twenty years ago. When the Government of 1892 was formed, we could have had two or three posts if we had desired, because that Government depended absolutely upon our support. We have never consented to join any Government, and we never can without forfeiting the confidence of our people until the Irish question is settled. The Government knows that perfectly well. The Coalition Government was formed behind our backs without our being given a hint of what was going to be done, and without them listening to our counsel. I venture to say that the counsel of the Irish Members is not entirely worthy of contempt, because we really have had some experience in this House and of the working of parties. We objected to it, first of all, because we thought that it was a bad instrument for conducting the War, and, secondly, because—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
We are getting a very long way from the question which we are now discussing. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask for more days, in order to discuss Irish Supply, he is entitled to do so, but to go into the question of the formation of the Coalition Government, now more than a year ago, is hardly relevant to the question whether Supply should be limited to thirteen or to sixteen days.

§ Mr. DILLON
I do not want to contend the matter with you, Sir, but I thought it was in a sense pertinent, because it is the formation of the Coalition Government which has forced us to break our silence and to demand the three days. If it had not been for that, we should have acquiesced in the policy of the Government in cutting down the days of Supply, but the whole matter has been revolutionised, and, so far as I am concerned, I will be no party in the future to abating one tittle the established rights of the Irish party to criticise this Government.

Sir H. DALZIEL
The Prime Minister, in the statement he made, did not give us any idea when he hoped to move the Adjournment for the Recess. I hope, before this Debate closes, that he will be able to give us some indication as near as possible when he proposes to do that. With regard to the demand made for other Votes, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider the question of a day for discussing the Ministry of Munitions. There are many important questions in connection with that office which I think we ought to have an opportunity of discussing before the House adjourns. There are questions of labour and of production which it would probably be to the advantage of the Government itself to give us an opportunity of discussing. The point before us is whether private Members of this House—we have no official Opposition now—are going to relinquish many other opportunities which we should have had of raising other matters in connection with the administration of the Government. I am bound to say that our case on this occasion is not so strong as it has been on previous occasions. By a curious number of circumstances we have had many opportunities this Session which we have not had in previous Sessions of raising matters of public interest, because, after all the really important matters all concern the War, and owing to the Votes of Credit 61 and other propositions we certainly have had opportunities. Still, at the same time, if we are going to relinquish these opportunities with regard to several Departments which we might well utilise, I think we are entitled to ask the Government how they are going to use the number of days with which we are going to present them. It is pertinent to ask, for example, whether any of that time is going to be occupied by putting registration proposals before the House before the Adjournment. I should like to have a declaration on that matter. Are we to have a day to discuss the proposals of the Government on registration if we consent to this Motion? I should also like to invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell us when the new Bill dealing with the extension of the life of Parliament will be introduced. How many days does he propose to devote to that measure? If possible, we would like to know how long the life of Parliament is to be prolonged. I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to give us some information on these points.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move to leave out the word "thirteen" ["thirteen days"], and to insert instead thereof the word "fifteen."
The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we have had a very large number of days allotted to Supply, and he has included in those days the Votes of Credit, but if any hon. Member will look at the Standing Orders he will see it provides that the Votes of Credit are not to be included. The words are: Provided that the days occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of a previous Session, or of any Vote of Credit, or of Votes for Supplementary or additional Estimates presented by the Government for war expenditure, or for any new service not included in the ordinary Estimates for the year, shall not be included in the computation of the twenty days aforesaid. Therefore, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is hardly correct, because by the Standing Orders any days devoted to Votes of Credit should not be included. What is the actual effect of this Order? I am rather surprised that the House has not raised that question. The effect is that we are only, going to have one and a-half or one and three-quarter days more. We have already had ten days. There will be one whole day more, and on the twelfth day the guillotine will come into operation at ten o'clock. There are a great number of very important matters 62 to be considered. There is, first of all, the question of the Treasury. No one can deny that one of the most important matters connected with the War is finance, and, while we have not been able to discuss Supply in connection with the Army and Navy except on the Votes of Credit, which are outside the Supply Order, we could, if we had the opportunity, discuss the question of finance on the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That has never been put down. I made the request more than a week ago to the Patronage Secretary (Mr. Gulland) that we should have a day for the discussion of the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I made it also to my Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot). There are two Patronage Secretaries at the present time, and I took the opportunity of making the request to both of them. I ventured to ask my Noble Friend if he acquiesced in that demand. One of the secretaries of the Unionist War Committee also made the request a week ago.

§ Sir C. HENRY
The request was also made by Members on this side of the House.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a new thing.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I said that if the request were made for a discussion on the Treasury Vote we should be prepared to agree to it, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Carson) at once made the request.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Very well. There are very important matters to be considered. The Prime Minister has dealt with the Treasury Vote, but there is also the question of the Vote for the Ministry of Munitions. There are, therefore, a very large number of important questions which ought to be considered, and it will be quite impossible to consider them in one and three-quarter days. I therefore beg to move to amend the Motion by leaving out the word "thirteen" in order to insert "fifteen," and later to leave out the word "twelfth" in order to insert the word "fourteenth."

§ Mr. ASHLEY
How many more days does that give us?

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I have added two more days in each case, and I think that is right.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I will not go into the points raised fey the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), because I do not understand that at this moment he is asking for a day for Irish Supply. With regard to the points raised in other quarters of the House, I think, when considering how much time has been actually given to Supply, we are entitled to include the three Votes of Credit and the four Consolidated Fund Bills which have occupied eight days, and upon the Second and Third Readings of which general questions of Supply might easily be raised. I do not think, therefore, that I was in any way mistaken or controverting the fact when I said that we have had thirty-four days of Supply in one form or another, including the Votes of Credit, as compared with twenty days in the Standing Orders, which I agree do not include Votes of Credit. I suggested that an extra day should be given to the Colonial Office Vote and to the Scottish Vote.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I am not sure that Scotland wants it.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should say an "extra" day.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
We have had "ten days, and I said "three extra days."

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The three are not extra.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
The three are extra to the ten. Do not let us get into a quarrel about a question of simple arithmetic.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
They are not extra to the twenty.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Three extra to twenty would be twenty-three. I think that is right.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
That is right.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I will not call them extra days, but of the three additional days one is to be given to the Colonial Office Vote, another to the Scottish Vote, which I am afraid, notwithstanding the sanguine view of my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) will be demanded, and the other we propose to give to the salary of the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee.

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
May I point out to the Prime Minister, with regard to the Vote for the salary of the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee, that there is a great deal of unrest in the local authorities about the appointment of the Committees, and it is very urgent that Vote should come on first?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Surely that unrest can be made articulate on the Vote for the salary of the Vice-Chairman?

§ Mr. SAMUEL
We want it to come on as soon as possible.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
My hon. Friend agrees that is the proper course.

§ Mr. SAMUEL
Yes.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), I understand, wants two more days, one of which is desired for the Vote of the Ministry of Munitions and the other for the Treasury Vote. The effect of his Amendment will be to give those two more days. I am disposed to accept it. It is not an unreasonable request. Perhaps it will meet the right hon. Baronet's wishes if the Munitions discussion is taken either on the last day in Committee or the last day on Report as the case may be, and the same arrangements with regard to the Treasury Vote possibly will suit the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. Let us conclude a bargain on that basis giving two extra days, one for the Treasury Vote and one for the Vote of the Ministry of Munitions, on the understanding that they are to be the last two days—that is to say, the days when the Committee Votes are taken and the day when the Report Votes are taken. On that understanding, I will accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
I am very glad the Prime Minister is able to announce that he will give us these two extra days. He has, however, made it appear that he has made a great concession to the House in allowing fifteen days for the discussion of Supply instead of the normal twenty. He indulged in some very ingenious arithmetic by which he found that thirty-four days would have been given to Supply, but by the same arithmetic in any other Session the same total could be arrived at, because the twenty days are always exclusive of the days on which Mr. Speaker is not out of the Chair, and of Votes of Credit. The 65 real comparison that ought to be made, therefore, is between the twenty days in the Standing Order and the fifteen days we are now to have. Last Session we had seventeen days. This year it was to be thirteen, and, proceeding on that basis, next Session we should have eight. My real motive in rising is to ask the Prime Minister whether next Session we cannot really reverse the order and have twenty days given to Supply. I want to submit to him that it is not less important during a great war to have days devoted to Supply, but that it is more important. I think anyone who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) will recognise that it has been a real disadvantage to the House, and to the country, that we have not had a discussion on Irish Supply in this House during the last two years. Some mistakes which have been made might have been avoided if Irish grievances had been brought to light, and discussion had taken place in this House. The truth is that in most matters concerning any war a policy of silence is not the wise policy. We have no estimates, and cannot have any estimates, of expenditure, and the only control we really have left over the management of affairs in the House of Commons is the discussion which the House gets on Votes of Supply. I therefore appeal to the Prime Minister—it is too late in the Session now to ask for twenty days—to give an assurance that next Session we shall start with the understanding, and the Government will so arrange business as to achieve, that the full twenty days of Supply shall be given to the House.

§ Sir E. CARSON
The arrangement that has been come to with the Prime Minister is, at all events to my mind, fairly satisfactory in all the circumstances. At the same time, as we are now knocking off certain days of Supply I am really more concerned about what we are going to do with the other days that the Government are giving, and I would like to have an assurance from the Prime Minister that at a very early date, before the holidays, if there are to be any holidays, at all events before the Adjournment comes on, we should have a Registration Bill, because I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, there is no necessity that he should be taken by surprise, that while I believe the House would be quite willing to give him every kind of facility, even for the passing of his Bill for the extension of the life of 66 this Parliament, I do not think they will do so unless the Government really apply themselves to this question of registration. The way in which the matter has stood over for the past twelve months is to my mind almost a public scandal, having regard to what may happen in regard to the voice of the country. I hope we shall get an assurance that there is no intention of prolonging the life of this Parliament, which I have no doubt the House is quite willing to do, until the country is put in such a position that if there is an election the register will be on a satisfactory basis. That is one of the matters the Government ought to keep in mind at the present time in regulating the course of public business.

§ Mr. LOUGH
Before the Prime Minister answers, I desire to refer to a subject to which allusion has not been made. I do not think the Government's proposals are unreasonable in all the circumstances, especially after the way in which they have met my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), but in stating what we have done in Supply the Prime Minister made a singular omission. He did not tell us at all how the Votes had been dealt with, and what we will have to do when the guillotine falls. As the right hon. Gentleman has the advantage of the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Gulland) beside him, I think it would be an advantage to hear what will happen on that fatal night, which I always regard as the blackest night of Parliamentary discussion, when vast sums are voted without any discussion. I should like to hear from him how many Votes we have to take, and what amount of money we have to vote on that occasion without a single word of discussion. It has struck me that the House of Commons has been singularly lenient with regard to the allotted days of Supply, and that Votes have been very well obtained, as well as the Report stages. There was one night last week, I think, on which a tremendous amount of Supply was put down, and I think the House got almost through it all. I regard the automatic closure of Supply on the last night, and I have always done so, as a pure farce, discreditable to the proceedings of this House.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The right hon. Gentleman must not speak disrespectfully of the Standing Orders.

§ Mr. LOUGH
Certainly not, Sir. I will confine my language within the utmost 67 limits. Perhaps I may say that however well-intentioned that Standing Order was, its effect on this House has been a little unfortunate.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
We cannot discuss it now because there is no opportunity of altering it.

§ Mr. LOUGH
No. I am not going even to discuss it. I only want to ask for information, and on these occasions when the twenty days which are in the Standing Order are varied—for instance, last year they were made seventeen, and this year they are going to be fifteen—I only desire that the Prime Minister should tell us how far the guillotine is necessary at all at present. I, for one, would be extremely glad to hear that matters have been so effectively dealt with on the days of Supply that the guillotine had become entirely unnecessary, and I believe that until it does become unnecessary this House will not recover its ancient prestige. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many Votes remain?

§ Sir COURTENAY WARNER
I think one or two words ought to be said from these benches before the Prime Minister answers against the precedent that has been set. It is not so much the necessity for drawing our work to a close this year, but the precedent, first of making twenty days into seventeen, and then into thirteen, or, with the modification, fifteen. There is a strong feeling against this among many of us, and I hope there will be no question of doing it again. I should also like to say that there is a strong feeling in this House that the Irish Members have a right to their full time, and that they will get much greater support for their grievances, after the way in which they have supported the country in this time of trouble, from the benches on this side of the House than they have in the past.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
As one who protested against this Resolution last year—indeed, with very little encouragement or support from any quarter of the House—I think I am entitled to welcome the opposition and the protest made against the Prime Minister's proposal to-day. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. L. Jones) referred to the value of criticism in this House. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman in the past allowed his enthusiasm on this question to be suppressed. 68 I think it is important that when this decision is being taken with regard to the time of the House that we should have some assurance from the Government in the sense suggested more by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Banbury). If we are to surrender the days given to us by the Standing Orders, then we should have an indication from the Government of the method in which they are going to employ the time. Undoubtedly the questions mentioned by both those right; hon. Gentlemen are questions of the greatest urgency. I think that at no time should the questions of a register and of a General Election have been dissociated. The great mistake was made a year ago when we dealt with the registration question without any reference to an election. I think it is extremely important that both problems should be dealt with together, and before the rising of the House. I hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will be in a position to give an assurance that the Government will be able comprehensively to deal with these questions before the House rises for the Recess.

§ Mr. BRYCE
There is one question which I think the House would like very much to discuss, and that is the administration of the Board of Trade. I do not know whether it is worth while asking for a day for that now, because the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman) is not in attendance; but if the Prime Minister was able to say that early in the next Session a day would be given for discussing the conduct of the Board of Trade, I think it would reassure the House. I know a great many people want to talk about it.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
Will the Prime Minister tell us what effect the proposal of the Government, as modified by the acceptance of the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), has upon holidays? It is quite clear that when a Government proposes to settle the number of Supply days they have in their minds the termination of this part of the Session, and I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the Prime Minister, in answering, could tell the House when he proposes that this part of the Session should come to an end, and for how long the Recess should last. That would be for the convenience and to the advantage of Members.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I will endeavour to deal with the various points that have been raised. First of all, I was asked what the programme of the Government was going to be next Session, and whether twenty days would be given to Supply. That is a question I cannot answer. I do not know who will be responsible for the Government next Session. I have not the faintest idea. At any rate I am not in a position, nor is anybody, to make any announcement on that subject. I can only deal with the Session with which we are now concerned. In regard to that, first of all I will deal with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough). He asked, or I understood him to ask, in what way we had occupied the days that have been actually allotted to Supply or consumed in Supply.

§ Mr. LOUGH
How many Votes have been passed?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Yes. Of the allotted days, two were for Civil Service Votes on Account, Committee and Report; Army Votes A and 1, Army Vote 12, the Office of Works, the Board of Agriculture, the Insurance Commission, the Home Office, the Post Office, and the Board of Education. On the four unallotted days, Supplementary Estimates, Navy Voes A and 1, another day for Army Votes A and 1, and the Local Government Board. Those are the actual heads of Supply dealt with by the House. I cannot say for the moment the total amount of money voted on those days, but those are the subjects to which the House, not at the request of the Government but of Members interested, have applied the allotted and unallotted days. I have pointed out before that four days were taken to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, and one for the Navy, one for the Army, and one on the Civil Service. In regard to how we shall occupy the time of the House if the Motion in its amended form is now carried, our hope was that we might move the Adjournment on some date about the 17th of this month, August. The House has now, if the Motion as amended is carried, added two other days, and it may, therefore, become not possible to adjourn quite so early as that.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The 17th of August with two days added?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I would not like to give any pledge, but the 17th was 70 the day on which we hoped the House might be in a position to adjourn.

§ Mr. HOUSTON
Will the Prime Minister say for how long he proposes the House should adjourn?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I hope for a substantial time. [Laughter.] When I say a substantial time, shall I say six weeks—possibly a little longer? I do not like to commit myself at this moment to that, but it will be for a substantial time.
As regards the use of the time beyond that which is allotted to Supply between now and the 17th of August, there is one Bill which it is, of course, absolutely essential should be passed—that is the Bill for prolonging the life of this Parliament, which otherwise expires in September, to some more remote date—I will not say for how long, but, at any rate, for a certain number of months. My right hon. and learned Friend asked me whether that proposal would be accompanied by a proposition on behalf of the Government in regard to registration and the creation, I will not say of new electors, but of a new register. Undoubtedly the House will be entitled to ask the Government, when they bring forward their Bill for the prolongation of the life of this Parliament, to be put in possession, at any rate in outline and principle, of their proposals with regard to registration. On the other hand, of course, it is quite impossible, if we are to have a Recess beginning on the 17th August, or any date about that time, that these proposals should themselves be the subject of legislation before we adjourn. Our idea, therefore, is that when we bring forward, as we must, the Bill for the prolongation and extension of the life of this Parliament for a certain number of months, we shall put the House and the country in possession of our proposals in regard to registration, and that the discussion—the detailed discussion—of those proposals must necessarily be reserved until after the House resumes.

§ Sir E. CARSON
Will they be in a Bill?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Yes, I think so—

§ Sir E. CARSON
Because it might be only a statement.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I want to guard myself against misunderstandings, which are so easily engendered in regard to these matters. What I want to guard against is conveying the suggestion that the Government is to present a Bill which 71 must be carried through all its various stages before the House adjourns, unless there is general consent. That would be quite out of the question. The Government think that both parts of their proposals should undoubtedly be presented before the House adjourns.

§ Mr. DILLON
Is it in order on this Motion to debate the Registration Bill and the prolongation of the life of Parliament? You, Sir, called me to order when I was discussing it.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
There can be no debate upon it. I understand the question is whether the Government proposes to proceed with these proposals and lay them before the House.

§ Mr. DILLON
There has been considerable debate on this special point. The only question before the House is as to the number of days to be devoted to Supply.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I can assure my hon. Friend that I do not want to debate the matter. Nothing is further from my thoughts, or wishes, but I was asked the question how the Government proposed to employ the time, after the days in Supply had been exhausted, before the Adjournment took place, and, in courtesy, I was bound to reply. I do not want to go into any controversial matter whatsoever in connection with that or any other business or any question which is not relevant to this Motion. I think I have now answered all the questions put to me, and I hope the House will now agree to the Resolution.