GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS. (Hansard, 23 November 1916)

§ Sir EDWARD CARSON
On a point of Order. This Motion which is now put to the Committee has not appeared on any 1653 Paper, and we have had no notice of it. I have only had time just to try to grasp what are its terms, and it seems to me that the powers that are being asked for are of the very widest character. In fact, it is giving the Government a blank cheque. I think the House ought to have had it in some way or other communicated to them before it was moved, and in order that we may have time to consider it I move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

§ Mr. KING
I beg to second the Motion.
This Resolution is introduced in exactly the same form, and in the same indefinite terms that many have been introduced before, and especially during the time the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) was a Law Officer of the Crown. When he was a member of the Cabinet, Resolutions of this kind were constantly introduced. He never seemed to know anything about them, and I always opposed them then, and I am going to oppose them now. Though I am surprised at the attitude of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am extremely delighted at it, and I welcome him as a convert which I, and I think the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), have often taken up. We have constantly protested against these indefinite financial Resolutions, and I hope the Government will allow Progress to be reported.

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood)
This financial Resolution is in precisely the same form as on two previous occasions. I am sure those who, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, desire the effective conduct of the War will appreciate that the Government has to take action, especially in regard to financial matters, without delay. The ordinary practice was followed. Notice was given yesterday of this financial Resolution, and the financial Resolution is brought in to-day. The next stage will be to introduce a Bill which will give all the particulars of the various classes of obligations for which the Government requires? the sanction of the House. In the Schedules of that Bill are set forth all the details. Nothing unusual and nothing but what is in the ordinary course of practice is being done on this occasion, and I do not know why this Motion to report Progress should be moved. I will point 1654 out to the House, what I thought the House was well aware of, that the Government has certain financial obligations, and it is necessary that they should enter into obligations beyond the limits of one year. For example, there is the insurance of shipping. The whole House agreed we were right in entering on that obligation.

§ Sir E. CARSON
If this only refers to past obligations I will withdraw the Motion.

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
It does refer to past obligations.

§ Sir E. CARSON
Only?

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to obligations already entered into, the answer is "Yes." For instance, there are obligations entered into to guarantee the bankers with regard to certain matters. There is an obligation entered into with regard to persons who have lent the Government stocks and shares. Those obligations go beyond the limits of this year. What this Bill asks the House to do is to approve of the undertakings we have entered into up to this time. Of course, if these obligations can be met out of the Vote of Credit within the limits of the financial year there is no necessity to bring in this Bill, but they are continuing obligations going on for two years, and some for longer periods. Discussion, of course, will be appropriate on the Bill. This is only a financial Resolution upon which the Bill is based, and, so far from there being anything unusual in the practice, exactly the same practice was adopted in 1914 and in December of last year. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will be satisfied with that explanation.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in stating that there have been on two previous occasions Bills introduced and passed into law which have authorised the Government to take money out of the moneys provided by Parliament, and out of the Consolidated Fund, for obligations which may have been incurred prior to the passing of the Act. One was on the 24th of November, 1914, and the second was on the 22nd of November, 1915. I do not know whether that was altogether a wise practice on the part of this House, but it was done because this House was most anxious not to put any impediment in the way of the 1655 Government procuring money for the carrying on of the War. I think, however, that there are a great many hon. Members now who are rather of opinion that the very wide financial powers given to the Government were a mistake, and that we ought to have retained some control over the finances of the country in our own hands. Yesterday I saw a notice that this House would, at its sitting today, resolve itself into a Committee for doing certain things. There was no notice of this on the Paper, and it is quite correct to say that what has been done is the old custom. When the party to which I have the honour to belong was in power, there was nothing more violently attacked by the then Opposition than the fact that these Resolutions were not put upon the Paper. That was when there was no War, and when the Resolutions were of a mild and moderate character. I frequently reminded the Government of this, and I read extracts from the speeches of right- hon. Gentlemen opposite to remind them of this fact. Once or twice right hon. Gentlemen opposite did carry out criticisms which they had made, and put these notices on the Paper. Afterwards the practice dropped, and I do not know whether this was owing to the Coalition Government or not. The practice dropped at a time when it is most important that these Resolutions should appear on the Paper. I will just read this Resolution, because it is a far-reaching one, and the effect of it is to give the Government power to use any moneys provided by Parliament, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be required for giving effect to the obligations incurred for the purposes of the present War, or in connection therewith by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and for other purposes in relation thereto. That is a blank cheque upon the credit of the Consolidation Fund; it does away with the necessity for any Vote of Credit, and it allows the Government to take whatever money they like either out of the moneys provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund, which is practically the credit of the country. When I saw this Resolution I tried to find out where it was going to be limited, whether it was limited to the Bills of 1914 and 1915, or whether it was limited to obligations already incurred prior to this date, 1656 and I could not find out. Therefore I thought it was necessary that we should ask for some explanation from the Government as to whether or not an undertaking has been given that the Bill will be confined to obligations already incurred. I think that statement has already been made; it is satisfactory, and it makes things rather better. It is quite possible that when the Bill comes before the House it may be said that the House has already incurred this expenditure, and that we cannot alter it, and I think for that reason it is rather doubtful whether we ought to pass the Resolution. At any rate, I think it ought to be made perfectly clear in the Resolution that it is confined to obligations incurred before the passing of the Resolution. I think we ought to take some steps to reestablish the control of this House which we seem to have lost over finance.

§ Mr. DILLON
I cannot agree with the-statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to the practice of the House, and it is a very remarkable thing that in trying to support this practice the right hon. Gentleman founded himself upon the precedent of two years during the War. It is notorious that many things were done in 1914 and 1915 that have never been done in the House before, and really the House of Commons was then in a mood to allow anything, because nobody liked to criticise anything the Government wished to do for the prosecution of the War. Therefore, I think the Government ought to avoid quoting, in support of their action on this occasion, the precedents of the last two years. What the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said is quite true. Those of us who sat in Opposition, including many of those on the Treasury Bench, have again and again protested in times of peace, when these Resolutions were comparatively matters of course, against the practice of not putting these Resolutions on the Notice Paper, and simply giving notice that they would be moved. That was in days when the Resolutions were more or less matters of course. The Resolutions we are dealing with now are of a character and scope of which nobody has the faintest notion. We are entering upon a wholly different field, and we are being called upon to pass this Resolution blindly, although it is one of enormous importance. What took place last night? 1657 When the Notice was called on last night, that this House should resolve itself into a Committee for the purpose of considering this Resolution, objection was taken, and a debate ensued, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, "Wait until to-morrow, and a full explanation will be given." That was said at eleven o'clock last night.

§ Mr. MCKINNON WOOD
No!

§ Mr. DILLON
Yes!

§ Mr. McKlNNON WOOD
What I said was that details of the obligations already incurred which this Resolution will sanction will appear in the Bill and may be discussed on the Bill. That is what I said.

§ Mr. DILLON
I distinctly recollect some official saying that a full explanation would be given.

Sir H. DALZIEL
Yes; the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Gulland) said it.

§ Mr. DILLON
I know that someone said that when the Resolution was moved a full explanation would be given. I think it is very objectionable that this Resolution should be taken in the dark, without a full explanation. I expected that the Financial Secretary would have given a full explanation as to why this Resolution is necessary. I never heard any rational explanation of the reason why these Resolutions are not put on the Notice Paper like all our other business. In the old days we did succeed in getting copies of the Resolution before the Debate commenced, so that we might have an opportunity of reading it over. The practice of not putting these Notices on the Paper is an absurd one that ought to be departed from, and I never could get any satisfactory explanation of it from any Government. Why should not the Financial Resolutions be put on the Notice Paper like any other business we have to consider? Very often these Financial Resolutions are extremely important, and it frequently happens that you are crippled afterwards in discussing the Bill by something which appears in the Resolution per incuriam, and then you are informed that in the discussion you are tied by the words of the Resolution. I hope the Government will depart from the old practice and put these Resolutions on the Paper. Undoubtedly the Financial Secre- 1658 tary to the Treasury ought to give us an explanation of the necessity for this Resolution and its scope.

§ Mr. DAVID MASON
The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has raised a very strong objection. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether this Resolution referred to past obligations, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman to reply that it referred only to past obligations. These obligations are current, and we do not really know where we are. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has issued a further call for the mobilisation of securities, and I understand that this Bill would cover that and other transactions. On a former occasion the right hon. Gentleman opposite raised a somewhat similar point on a Money Resolution with reference to insurance. But this is not quite the same, because the liability in the case of the Insurance Resolution was limited, while there is no limit to this, and it is practically a blank cheque we are asked to subscribe to. If the right hon. Gentleman can give us an explanation as to what the limit is, then we know better what we are doing.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I suppose I have put as many of these Resolutions on the Table as any hon. Member in this House during the three or four years I was at the Treasury, and I recollect very well what the course of business was I was pressed by the Opposition and by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) to provide copies of these Resolutions exactly in the form in which they were moved at the Table, and in accordance with the then policy of the Government I used to give to the right hon. Baronet and others a copy of these Resolutions. I always thought that that was a reasonable course to adopt, for it enabled the House to know what it was going to discuss. I must say that until that time the House used to have the Resolutions produced by the Chairman, and they used to be read out not very slowly, and it was perfectly impossible to know to what the House was pledging itself. A new departure was made during the time I was at the Treasury, and copies of these Resolutions were given to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London or any other hon. Member who cared to ask for them.

§ Sir E. CORNWALL
Was the Resolution printed?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
No, it was not printed. I think that was a good practice. I think that when the House hears what this particular Resolution is hon. Members will see that it is perfectly innocuous. I think if in the Resolution before the word "incurred" we inserted the word "already" the whole of the objections raised on this side of the House would vanish, this discussion would disappear, and we could get on with the financial business. If my suggestion were adopted the Resolution would read: If those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be required for giving effect to obligations already incurred for the purposes of the present War or in connection therewith. That would give the Government all the power they require. They could then deal with any emergency that might arise, and at the same time it "would ensure that the House was not pledging itself to expenditure of which it did not approve, or could not approve, and it would get the Government out of the difficulty, at the same time retaining control by the House over finance which is the real raison d'être of the existence of this House.

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna)
I do not think my right hon. Friend's proposal would be the right method of carrying out the object which he has in view. If we inserted the words "already incurred" in the Resolution now it might leave some doubt as to the period of time to which it referred. I will, however, undertake in the Bill as presented to the House that we will insert after the word "incurred" the words "by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government before the passing of this. Act." We never had any other intention. That is all that the Resolution is meant to cover. I think perhaps that will be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Sir E. CARSON
That is not what the Resolution says. One of my great objections to this Resolution, as I heard it read out, was that in its present form any obligation incurred by the Government would come under it, but there is no use wasting time, and if my right hon. Friend says that he will put in the Bill words which will limit it to obligations 1660 incurred before the Bill becomes law, I am quite satisfied, and under the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

§ Sir E. CORNWALL
There is just one aspect of a Resolution of this kind to which the Committee might give a moment's thought before too readily passing it. The time has come when the House has got to view the financial proposals of the Government with a little more care than we have hitherto done since the War broke out. Everyone has been anxious to show a willingness to give the Government full supplies for the utmost vigorous prosecution of the War and not to be too particular whether it is a Resolution for War Obligations on a Vote of Credit or any other method the Government have felt it necessary to adopt. We have always been ready to agree to it. This House and the country, I think, will always be ready to vote the money, but now that the Government is asking us by one method or another to vote over £1,500,000,000 per year for war expenditure, the time has come when this House, which, after all, is responsible to the country for these huge Votes of Supply, should know more about the expenditure of these vasts sums of money. It ought not any longer to be so easy for the Government, and we ought not merely because they come down here and because it is war expenditure, or called war expenditure, to vote the money too readily. I think the House would be absolutely failing in its duty unless it insisted, from now and so long as the War lasts, upon being thoroughly satisfied that the money which is being voted is war expenditure and is being used for war purposes. I ask any Member of the House if he knows of his own knowledge or has any information that the money which we vote for the War is being used for the War. Do the Ministers themselves know whether it is being used for the War? The Treasury is far too busy to exercise that control over the various Government Departments which it used to exercise before the War. It has not got the time. I can imagine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary with their staff are overworked. No one desires to give them more credit than I do for the great national service which they are rendering, 1661 but it is impossible, with all the responsibility which falls upon them, for the Treasury to be exercising that control over expenditure—

§ Mr. McKENNA
On a point of Order. May I ask whether the speech of my hon. Friend is in order, having regard to the nature of this Bill? All the Bill asks is that the House will sanction certain obligations entered into and certain bargains made by the Government. It has nothing to do with the question of the control over expenditure, and it has nothing to do with Treasury control over Departments. The Bill simply asks Parliament to authorise certain obligations, mainly obligations into which I have entered in the execution of my duty.

§ Sir C. HENRY
Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea what those obligations are?

§ Sir F. BANBURY
On the point of Order. May I point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can hardly have read his Resolution, because the Resolution gives the Government power, and it does not confine it to the Treasury.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I did not say that it did.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
It gives the Government power to use any money borrowed on the security of the Consolidated Fund or otherwise for war obligations or purposes connected therewith It practically gives them power to spend any money they like, for any purpose they like, provided that they can say it is connected with the War.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I am aware that the view which the right hon. Gentleman takes is the view on which the speech of my hon. Friend is founded, but that is not the view of the Bill, and it is not what I am asking the House to sanction. It is not the Resolution, and it is not what will be contained in the Bill founded upon the Resolution.

§ Sir E. CORNWALL
Surely you need not be too particular when you are asking the House for millions.

§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)
I think I am fairly fully informed on the point of Order. It is whether the discussion which has been 1662 initiated by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Sir E. Cornwall) is or is not out of order. It seemed to me that he was entering upon a discussion which could more properly be taken on the Second Reading of the Bill than upon this Resolution on which the Bill is to be founded. The only reason for bringing in this Resolution is in order to found the Bill, and we cannot have a Second Reading Debate at this stage. I would therefore indicate to the hon. Member in possession of the Committee that any further remarks which he desires to make must be much more relevant to the Resolution than his last remarks were.

§ Sir E. CORNWALL
I appreciate your ruling, and at the particular moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I thought somewhat kindly, rose to a point of Order, I thought that I was—

§ Mr. PRINGLE
On the point of Order-Is it not the case that on a Resolution which is the foundation of a Bill anything is relevant which would be relevant on the Second Reading of that Bill?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is the point on which I have just given my ruling. I do not think it is; otherwise I would point out this would be like a Consolidated Fund Bill, and we should be having a full-dress Debate.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Is it not in order to-discuss whether or not it is advisable for this Committee to give to the Government the power asked for in the Resolution? The Resolution empowers the Government to spend—I say any quantity of money, but let us assume it is limited —a limited amount of money. It is quite true that a Bill is coming on, but this is the foundation of the Bill, and if the House thinks that it ought not to give the foundation of the Bill, it is entitled to give its reasons for withholding the money from the Government. That has always been the custom and rule upon these questions since I have been in the House, and I have had as much to do with these Resolutions as any Member in the House. As long as you can give reasons for not granting the money, it is in order to state those reasons.

§ Mr. ASHLEY
Would you indicate what we can discuss?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I have already done so.

§ Sir C. HENRY
Might I have your ruling on this point: This is a Resolution upon which a Bill is to be framed. A Vote of Credit is a Resolution upon which a Consolidated Fund Bill is based. Might I put it to you, as a point of Order, that in order to obtain information as to what the Bill is to contain, a discussion must take place at this stage?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I have simply ruled that the later remarks of the hon. Member in possession of the Committee were going beyond the scope of the Resolution, and to that ruling I still adhere. With regard to the discussion which may follow, I must deal with the position as it arises.

§ Sir E. CORNWALL
I have endeavoured to follow your ruling, and I have no objection to the ruling you gave on the words I was uttering at the moment. I am very glad, however, that on the broad question you have given no ruling against the point that I have made, and I hope that other hon. Members who have greater experience of keeping in order will follow up the discussion, because I feel very strongly that it is of the utmost importance. When the Government have come down and for two years have asked for £5,000,000 per day, and when they may he asking for £5,000,000 per day for another two years, I say that the circumstances have so altered that whenever the Government asks for any financial support, either by a Resolution such as this or by any other proposal, we should ask ourselves whether we are holding and keeping that control over the financial affairs of the country that we ought, in duty to the country and to our constituents, to exercise. In taking up this position, I make no complaint against Ministers, because they have no control over the situation and are not responsible for the War, but I say "money easy come, easy go," and, when the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Trade, and all these other Government Departments find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can come down here and, without discussion, get his Financial Resolution, or that the Prime Minister can get his Votes of Credit, money runs away like water. The time, therefore, has come when this House should satisfy itself that the money which is being voted is being used for the purposes of the War and the War only, and that there is no waste.
1664 We are advocating in the country that people should practise economy. Are we satisfied that the Treasury and the other Government Departments have been exercising all the economy possible? Of course we are not. Instead of our old practice of voting these Resolutions like we are asked to do to-day, the time has come when the Government should take the House more into its confidence and when it should set up a committee. The Public Accounts Committee is no use for this purpose. It meets two years afterwards and audits the accounts. The Estimates Committee does not meet. I do not know what power it has. Instead of coming down to-day and asking for this Financial Resolution, the Government ought to call in a Committee of the House, and it ought to explain to us how this huge sum of money is being spent day by day. We do not know, in fact, how much money is being spent. We have never been told. We have only been told how much money has been expended; we have never been told how much liability has been incurred. We are not told now, and we are not given any particulars as to how much money is involved in this Resolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that he cannot tell the House, and that it is a small Committee which is here this afternoon; but if this House is going to do its duty, the time has come when it must insist upon a change in the method of raising money for the War during the continuance of the War. If we do not do that, we shall be failing in our duty as responsible Members of Parliament.
I have put a Motion down on the Paper, and I hope that it will be in force before we get another Vote of Credit. I propose that a Committee should be set up in this House so that we may know from the Government Departments what they are doing with the money that they get from time to time. I do not raise this question with any intention of refusing the money for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks, but I hope that he will take the point I have raised very carefully into consideration, and that as a House of Commons man he will realise that the House at present has no control over this expenditure. It is not control for us merely to come down and vote this Resolution. It is not control to vote Vote of Credit after Vote of Credit. What do we know about it? Are we satisfied that the money is being properly spent? I venture 1665 to say that none of us are satisfied. I rise to urge—I hope other hon. Members will take up the question—that the time has come when we should refuse to give any financial Resolution, and Vote of Credit, or any money until the Government tells us where the money is going, and satisfies us, as representing the people of the country, that it is being used for the prosecution of the War, and is not being misused, and that no Government Department is extravagant in its expenditure. I hope something will arise out of this discussion to bring about a more satisfactory condition of affairs that exist at the present time.

§ Mr. ASHLEY
I thoroughly agree with what has fallen from the last speaker. I wish that other hon. Members of this House had the courage to speak out in the way he has done. I object to this Resolution for two reasons. In the first place, I have not the slightest confidence, if this money is given to the Government, that they will spend it in the right way. Secondly, before we are asked to vote this omnibus Resolution we ought, I submit, to be given some details. The Secretary to the Treasury told us a few days ago that in the Bill which was founded on this Resolution details will be given. But I do not suppose they will be ample or satisfactory. I want to submit this to the Committee. Why put the cart before the horse? Why pass a Resolution and refuse to give us any details until later on when the Bill is before the House? Surely the sensible and businesslike arrangement would be to give the details on the first stage, then, later on, we could discuss them, and, if necessary, pass a perfectly vague Resolution. But it is ridiculous to ask sensible men to come here and pass a Resolution without giving any details, but simply promising they shall be forthcoming later on, when the House will probably then have tied itself down to giving the money. Here is an opportunity for carrying out a businesslike reform. I quite understand that one must not at this stage go into details, but does any hon. Member think that the present Government, in their spending Departments, are a body of men to whom one would willingly hand over £5,000,000 to expend without first securing any details? In the Admiralty, the War Office, the Munitions Office, and other Government Departments waste goes on unchecked. The Press is gagged. It is 1666 very difficult to get a discussion on these questions here. For these reasons I oppose this Resolution.

§ Sir CHARLES HENRY
It must be recognised that if the House loses control over the Treasury it loses one of its primary functions. Since my right hon. Friend has occupied his present position as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House has been getting less and less control over the nation's finance. I consider this is perhaps the most important stage of a Bill, and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will state now for what purpose this money is being found. What obligations is it intended to meet, and to what extent will it meet them? With what previous speakers have said as regards Treasury control, I am in perfect agreement. The Treasury is losing control over the different Departments, and for them to come down and ask for a supplementary Vote of Credit—and that, after all, is what this Bill really is—

§ Mr. MCKENNA
No, no!

§ Sir C. HENRY
Well, I will put it in this way: There are certain obligations which have to be met. They cannot be met out of the Vote of Credit, and, therefore, this Bill is 'brought forward. That is the sole reason why this Bill is introduced. I should like further to know how is this money to be found in order to meet the requirements of this Bill? Are we to have fresh issues of Treasury Bills or Exchequer Bonds? My right hon. Friend knows my views with regard to the continual piling up of floating debt, and I shall be very sorry if this Bill is to be used as a fresh instrument for that purpose. This is a most important matter. The Resolution ought not to be allowed to pass through the House of Commons almost sub silentio. Before we accept this Resolution we ought to have a full explanation of what the Government require of us in this Bill.

Sir H. DALZIEL
I do not think the Government are to be congratulated on the manner in which they have brought this matter before the House. We are told it embodies, at the lowest estimate, very large authority being given to the Government. I suggest it would be respectful to the House if they carried out the principles which they so eloquently advocated in Opposition. It would have been courteous to have printed and circulared this Resolution beforehand. How on earth 1667 could the Government have suffered by adopting that course? It is ridiculous that we should be discussing a matter of the utmost importance when we really do not know the terms of the Resolution. The policy of handing out to one or two Members copies of the Resolution while the House is not in possession of the document itself is most unbusinesslike and reprehensible. Why could not the Government have placed it on the Paper two or three nights ago? We should then have been in a position to discuss it with better knowledge. Some time ago we appointed another Cabinet Minister to go to the Treasury to help deal with these matters, and to-day we have two Cabinet Ministers looking after the work of that Department, and yet we are called upon to discuss a serious proposition like this without having the terms of the Resolution before us. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the old days, when he sat below the Gangway, expressed himself with horror when it was suggested, as has been suggested to-day, that this is not an important stage of a Bill.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I never said it was not important.

Sir H. DALZIEL
Does the right hon. Gentleman say it is important?

§ Mr. McKENNA
I never said anything of the kind, and all these charges as to what was done in Opposition years ago have no relation, as far as I am aware, to the matter now before the House.

Sir H. DALZIEL
Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest he never complained of Resolutions like this not having been printed?

§ Mr. McKENNA
I cannot charge my memory.

Sir H. DALZIEL
It is a case, I think, of failure of memory.

§ Mr. McKENNA
No, it is not.

Sir H. DALZIEL
I think I can safely say that the right hon. Gentleman did so. But that does not alter the facts, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going now to defend the policy he is pursuing we shall know his opinion on the point. At any rate, I am against that policy. I maintain that the Government have pursued a course in this matter opposed to that which they advocated in Opposition. Now I come to another point. I want to deal with the 1668 Phrase "moneys provided for by Parliament." Does that mean that Parliament has already provided the money?

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
Part of it only.

Sir H. DALZIEL
Then we know, at any rate, a part of it has been voted by Parliament already.

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
I will explain it.

Sir H. DALZIEL
Why was it not explained at the beginning? Why not give us the particulars when moving the Resolution? I say we ought to have had a full and complete statement when the Motion was made. Later on, when there was a Motion to report Progress, the right hon. Gentleman did tell us that this Bill provided for American securities and other matters in connection with the War. There is one question I wish to put. Does the Bill deal with any matter concerning our war obligations to our Allies? Can I have a straight answer to that question? Does it deal with arty war obligation entered into with regard to any of our Allies or with regard to Greece? Does it deal with any obligation towards Roumania? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to answer those questions.

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
The right hon. Gentleman will get the details in the Bill.

Sir H. DALZIEL
But this is a time when we ought to have the details. We have been given a few particulars by the Secretary to the Treasury. We have been told something about shipping and securities, but apparently we are not to have all the facts now. We were told last night that if we would only allow the Resolution to be passed, thus authorising us to go into Committee, we should get the details. It seems to me that this is an attempt to get the matter through without affording a complete statement. What is our liability under the Resolution? What is the total amount we are now asked to authorise? Surely we are entitled to an answer to those questions. At present we do not know what the answer is. There must be some estimate of the total amount involved in the passing of this Resolution. It would have been much better for the passage of this Resolution through the House if the Committee had been taken fully into the confidence of the Government. It is not only what has occurred in the past that we have to consider we have to bear in mind the present. This is 1669 a Coalition Government. We have all the brains, all the capacity, and all the statesmanship together in this Government; therefore, there is no real Opposition in this House. In these circumstances we ought to go more warily in the future than apparently we are now doing.

§ Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY
No one appreciates more than I do the immense importance of the House of Commons keeping financial control over the Government, and no one is less inclined than I am to yield any portion of that control. But I do think that this discussion is a little unnecessary and premature. I know we have to have these Resolutions before the introduction of any Bill dealing with money. If the old custom of the House is looked up, the custom before the days when that obstruction commenced—which has resulted in a very great diminution in the real control of Parliament over its business—in those days these Resolutions were taken entirely as formal Motions. The object of them was to give the House notice, and to draw its attention to the fact, that money was being voted, so that when the Bill came before Parliament it would be within the knowledge of Members that that was its purpose, and they could, if they wished to do so, on the Second Reading, use all these arguments, which I freely acknowledge are of the very greatest importance. But discussions on these preliminary Motions have only resulted in the House losing control which it really ought to keep. I do hope the Government may now be allowed to get their Resolution, and that in the future discussions will be taken on the really important stages of the Bill, because that is where pressure can best be brought to bear on the Government.

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
With regard to one point which has been raised, I may say that, as a matter of fact, I rose to speak, but was interrupted because the right hon. Gentleman opposite moved to report Progress.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
Not I.

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
Not the right hon. Gentleman now on the bench, but another right hon. Gentle-man. My hon. Friend with whom I have been associated in public work for a great many years, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Sir E. Cornwall), is usually very much on the spot, if I may use such an 1670 expression, but to-day he is a long way off the track. This is not a question of granting money. The money is granted by a Vote of Credit, or is obtained out of the Consolidated Fund. But this Bill, for which the Treasury has been so much criticised, is ah example of the great care which is taken under the practice of this House to retain control over expenditure. In expending the Vote of Credit, and the other money which the House places at the disposal of the Government, the Government has to enter into certain contractual obligations—for example, we have to enter into insurance obligations; we have to enter into obligations with regard to exchange in foreign countries; we have to enter into obligations with regard to persons who have been injured; we have to enter into obligations with regard to the large question of securities for purposes with which this House is familiar. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed the House of the contractual obligations he has entered into, both as to the guarantees to banks in the matter of exchange and in the matter of borrowing securities or purchasing securities for the purpose of foreign exchange.

§ Mr. D. MASON
Not the limit.

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
If the hon. Gentleman will only listen to the end of my argument, he will have no need to put forward that objection. We had to enter into these obligations, but they go on for some time. These are obligations we have already entered into. We now come to the House of Commons, not to ask them for more money—there my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green was off the track—not to ask them for more money, but to ask them if they approve of these contracts we have entered into. We get the sanction of the House to those contracts, which we have entered into. Circumstances arose in which we had to obtain control of securities. We have obtained control of those securities, and we now come to the House and ask it to approve of our action in this matter. We have entered into an obligation, and we ask the House to confirm and ratify that obligation Surely there is no need upon that to found a sermon to the Treasury about withdrawing things from the control of the House! To state that there is any thing of the kind is a very great departure from the facts.

§ Mr. ASHLEY
You give no details.

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
Please allow me. Our position is not an unreasonable or unusual one We bring in a Bill which gives all the details and the House will be able to express its opinion on every one of them. You never give details on the Money Resolutions. The Money Resolution is a wide Resolution. My tight hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) twitted the Government for not having adopted a particular procedure. I may say that I am absolutely free from blame. As far as I am personally concerned, I simply adopted the usual practice. Nothing is withdrawn from the control of the House. Everyone who has been following our financial business knows that this has been the invariable practice. Is anything withdrawn from the knowledge of the House? Is there any real basis for these complaints? I cannot see any. In a few days you will be asked to consider the Bill. The Bill will contain all the details. I have given the House an indication of the sort of thing it is; of what sort of contractual obligation it is. The House will say whether it approves of that or not. If the House disapproves of the practice, very well, my right hon. Friend and I shall bow to the decision of the House and retire from service in this capacity. The House has absolute control. What then is the ground of complaint? There is no ground of complaint at all. I cannot see what is wrong. Yon have got your Bill. In it you have all the details. You can move any Amendment on the bill when it goes into the Committee stage; but the idea that you are to discuss all the details of a Bill on the financial Resolution is absurd. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy knows that better than I do, for he has been a Member of this House longer than I have. To discuss all the details on the financial Resolution would be an abnormal procedure, and a very inconvenient one, and for my part I must follow the ruling of the Chairman, and confine myself to these general observations about the nature of the Bill and its purpose. It is not a Bill giving us new money. It does not give us a penny of new money. It is a submission to Parliament by the Treasury of the contracts they have already entered into for approval, or, if Parliament thinks well, for disapproval.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I should like to confirm what my right hon. Friend has said as to the usual practice of the House. At the same time, I should like to remind the hon. Baronet opposite the Member for Nottingham (Colonel Sir Charles Seely) of something which occurred when he was not, I think, a Member of the House of Commons. I should like to recall what took place sometime during the period when the Conservative Government of 1900 was in power. A discussion upon the appropriateness of discussion upon a Resolution of this kind took place, and I recollect perfectly well that at that time the then Prime Minister, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, made an offer to the House that if it was the wish and the opinion of the House, he would be perfectly willing to dispense with the financial Resolutions if the House thought the stage was not of real importance to the discussion. Unless my memory fails me—I have been unable to look up the exact ruling on this point—I think it was held at that time by the authorities, either of the Chair or Mr. Speaker, that it was a practical impossibility to discuss on a Resolution of this kind all the matter, which could be discussed on the Bill.

§ Colonel Sir C. SEELY
I did not wish to say for a moment it was not possible; I said it was not convenient, and that it would be more convenient to take the discussion on the Bill.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
May I finish my argument? I think it was then held by the authority in the Chair that it was practically impossible to discuss all the principles which were contained in the Bill. I do not recollect the House of Commons, ever attempting to discuss them, and there I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend opposite that the details were to be covered by a subsequent Bill. The House of Commons at that time, in spite of the then Prime Minister, strongly expressed the opinion that the financial Resolution stage should not be dispensed with. I speak within the recollection of Mr. Dillon when I say that at the time to which I have referred the House refused to part with the Resolution stage, because it did give them a further opportunity of controlling the expenditure of this House. The House of Commons is supposed to control the expenditure of the country, and it does it through agency of the Treasury. The Treasury, as a matter of fact, when the expenditure is so vast, as 1673 it is at the present time, is unable to? control the great spending Departments like the Army and Navy. It is idle to suppose any Department of State, however admirably it may be directed by its Parliamentary chief, and however admirably it may be served by the Civil Service at its disposal, can control expenditure of £1,500,000,000, which is the expenditure at the present time. I am perfectly certain, from a very intimate knowledge of this Department, that there are no more diligent servants of public economy than the Civil servants who are in the Treasury; and I am equally certain that the Parliamentary representative in this House of the Exchequer and the Treasury, whoever they be, from whatever party they are drawn, are the most vigilant custodian of public economy that can be found in this House. But owing to the vast expenditure which ordinarily takes place, and which extraordinarily takes place to-day, their task is an impossible one.
Let me say one other word upon this matter. This Resolution is not, as my hon. Friend seems to think, a Vote of Credit. It is an act of indemnity. It is to sanction expenditure which has been either already incurred or has been already approved, and it has to come up for Parliamentary sanction. It is expenditure which the Government have been able to look forward to, and which the House of Commons, when the details of that expenditure are before them, has it in its power to allow, and of course disallow, if it thinks proper. That is our measure of control, and it ought to be exercised most vigilantly. When this Bill comes up for discussion, as far as I am concerned—and those who I hope agree with in this matter will do the same—I shall give the most vigilant and searching examination to the expenditure which has already taken place upon a colossal and an inevitable scale.

§ Mr. DILLON
The course this Debate has taken is, I think, a most powerful illustration of the un wisdom of the Government in not taking the House fully into its confidence. An air of mystery has been thrown over the Bill, and the Secretary to the Treasury is beginning, I think, to appreciate the difficulty he has put the House into owing to the vague way in which he has allowed the Debate to go on. I must say, as a very old financial critic— I do not pretend to be an expert— 1674 but as one who has probably had as much experience of these financial matters as any Member of this House, I must say that the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury utterly failed to convince or satisfy me on this matter. I know this much, that the Bill is in the nature of a Bill of Indemnity. It is a Bill, as I understand it, of a very rare character, and therefore it is all the more reason why a frank statement should have been made at the very beginning, taking the House fully into the confidence of the Government. This is a very rare form of Bill. It is a Bill to give sanction to a large number of various obligations which the Government have entered into in pursuance of statements made on the various Votes of Credit. The Secretary to the Treasury said that when the Bill was introduced all the details would be given. I must have a word to say in a moment in regard to these obligations. It has been said that this House would have absolute control, and that if it chose to disallow any one of these details, the Secretary to the Treasury and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make their bow and disappear. With all due respect to the Secretary to the Treasury, that is absolute nonsense. I do not want to be impolite, but it is not correct to say that. Everybody knows that when the Treasury of this country pledges itself and enters into an obligation, this House has no longer the power to repudiate that pledge and obligation which has been entered into by their own Treasury. To imagine anything different is absurd. The obligation stands, no matter what this House votes. Not in the whole history of the British Parliament is there a single recorded instance of a pledge or obligation of the credit of this country after it had been given by a Minister of the Crown being afterwards repudiated by the House. Therefore the fact is that, so far as these obligations have been contracted, the House has no control over them at all.
There is another criticism I want to make upon the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury. He made what was to me the astounding statement that when the Bill was introduced, it would contain in schedules full details and particulars of all the obligations into which the Government had entered. I hope it will not. That raises the point that was discussed here about two years ago, when certain Members of the House made demands on 1675 the Government for full details and particulars of the obligations we had entered into with our Allies and in regard to various matters concerning the War, which it would have been in the highest degree mischievous to the interests of this Country to have disclosed.

§ Mr. McKENNA
It will not do that.

§ Mr. DILLON
The statement of the Secretary to the Treasury was that when the Bill was introduced full details of all these obligations would be found in the Schedules. I hope and trust that no such Schedules will be laid before this House. There are many obligations into which the Government have entered, or at least I hope there are, which it would be very improper and unwise for the Government to reveal until the War is over, when I suppose some Committee will take all these matters into their consideration. It was not correct for the Secretary to the Treasury to say that on the Committee stage of the Bill we shall have full particulars. All that we could reasonably ask for in discussing this Resolution, what we are entitled to ask for and what I ask for now, is some fuller statement as to the general policy of this Bill, why it was necessary to introduce it, and what is its real scope and effect? We have not yet had any statement of that kind which would show Members of this House—there are not many who are remaining throughout this Debate—first, why it was necessary to introduce The Bill, and, secondly, what the effect and scope of the Bill will be.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I must point out to the hon. Member that if either of the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Resolution now before the Committee proposed to enter into the details of the Bill, I should have been compelled to rule them out of order. I may add that since the ruling I gave a little time ago, I have had an opportunity of looking up some of the precedents, and I find that I gave a much more liberal interpretation to the practice of the House in this matter than the rulings given from time to time from the Chair by Mr. Speaker himself when Chairman of Ways and Means, and also the ruling he gave from the Chair as Speaker in 1908, when he treated a Resolution in reference to the Licensing Bill as a perfectly formal Resolution and refused to allow a Debate, which was then proceeding, to go any further. 1676 Discussion here must be on perfectly general lines, which were very properly followed by the hon. Member in possession of the Committee when I gave the ruling, and by subsequent speakers.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
On a point of Order. Is the Committee to understand that the ruling given by Mr. Speaker was on a Resolution that was ancillary to a Bill, and not a Resolution upon which the Bill was to be founded?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
One was a Resolution ancillary to a Bill relating to a Clause, and another related to the Bill itself. There is no doubt about the matter, and so far as I am personally concerned I have given a very liberal interpretation to previous rulings from the Chair.

§ Mr. DILLON
I desire to observe your ruling, Sir, but with all respect I would point out that I was stating that I did not want to go into details at all. I was raising not a question of detail, but a question of principle. Surely I am entitled to lay this consideration before you, namely, what was the object of the framers of the Rules of this House in requiring a Financial Resolution upon which to found a Bill of this character?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member asks me to explain that—he has a good deal of knowledge on this subject— I would say that we cannot have a Financial Bill brought before the House unless there is a Resolution preceding it in Committee. The only way in which you can get at such a Bill is by a Resolution of a somewhat formal character, with regard to the discussion of which there has been in recent years a very much more liberal interpretation given.

§ Mr. DILLON
Surely my argument is perfectly sound. These Rules did not grow up out of the ground. The Rules were drafted by men with some intelligence, brains, and purpose. Their purpose in requiring that method, which as you, Sir, have stated, is the only method by which we can get at a financial Bill, is as clear as daylight, namely, that there should be more stages and more opportunities of raising the question of policy involved in the Bill. I submit that when a Resolution of this kind is put before the House it is competent for the House to reject it. How can the House be asked to accept or reject a Resolution if they are debarred from considering the policy of a Resolution upon which the Bill is to be 1677 founded? Suppose I were to move the rejection of the Resolution, should I not be entitled to explain the grounds upon which I did so? I was going to observe that in my opinion the House is entitled to an explanation from the Government of the grounds upon which this Bill was required at the present time. All the obligations, so far as they have been indicated—and they have been pretty fully indicated by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—which are covered by this Resolution, and which will appear in the Schedules of the Bill, have all been mentioned in successive Votes of Credit. I make no charge against the Government—far from it—on attempting to evade the control of the House in these matters. I have been a constant attendant at, and a very attentive listener to, the Debates on the various Votes of Credit, and I know that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been most meticulous and careful in explaining all the obligations into which the Government desire to enter. They mentioned the American bonds, insurance, shipping, food contracts, foreign loans and Colonial loans, and secret service. Everything has been mentioned, and the House has given its sanction, a formal sanction, no doubt, but a very effective formal sanction to all these obligations. What I want to ask is why has it become necessary to pass this Bill of indemnity at all? Who has been questioning the action of the Government? Is this Bill intended to be a substitute for another Vote of Credit? I suppose we shall want another Vote of Credit before Christmas; is it intended to have another Vote of Credit? Is it the intention of the Government to make this Bill of indemnity a kind of substitute for a Vote of Credit?

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
Certainly not. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that we shall require another Vote of Credit before this House separates. This is not a Vote of Credit. This does not give the Government any money at all.

§ Mr. DILLON
It gives them power to enter into a variety of obligations.

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
It does not even do that. It merely submits to the House obligations and contracts desired to be made and asks for the approval of the House.

§ Sir C. HENRY
There is no money in this Bill at all?

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
None.

§ Mr. DILLON
The reason why a Money Resolution is required is not because the Bill gives any money, but because it enables the Government to contract certain obligations.

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
Perhaps I might make the thing clear by giving an actual illustration. Supposing the Treasury had made a contract with an individual owner of securities to borrow his securities and pay him ½ per cent. extra interest on them, all that this Bill will do is to give Parliamentary sanction to that bargain—a past bargain, a bargain made in the months which have passed since the last Bill of this sort was before the House. This is the third Bill of its kind.

§ Mr. DILLON
Now we are beginning to see daylight. If the Government had only opened the discussion by explaining that this was the third Bill of its kind—

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
I stated that, and I mentioned the dates, December, 1915, and November, 1914.

§ Mr. DILLON
That explanation has removed many of the difficulties which arose in my mind. I do not in the least degree suggest that the Government were attempting to escape from the control of this House in the matter. On the contrary, I believe they have been extremely frank.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
In spite of the good intentions of the Secretary to the Treasury, even yet the position is not quite clear to the Committee. I understand that a Bill was passed by which this House and the other House sanctioned certain obligations incurred by the Government before the passing of that Act. The sanctioning of those obligations related to obligations incurred only before the passing of that Act. I understood that if further obligations of the same kind were incurred during the ensuing year, it would be necessary to secure a further Act in the following year. The new Bill did more than that. It provided for the sanctioning of bargains in relation to a number of other subjects which were not provided for in the original Act. What is not clear to the Committee is whether in the Bill that is to be introduced upon the passing of this Resolution there are to be new kinds of bargains, in addition to the bargains which were sanctioned in the two Bills already passed.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
By implication that Bill gave power to make new contracts, because it ratified the old contracts.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
My point is that the Government has not explained this.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
That is so.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
If the right hon. Gentleman had informed the Committee that all the obligations which were within the purview of this Resolution were obligations which would have been covered by the previous Acts, had those obligations been undertaken before the passing of those Acts, the Government would have saved this discussion. We know from the experience of the Act of last year that there were included in the Bill when it was introduced a considerable number of obligations which were not in the view of the House when it passed the Resolution. The question I now put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is, does the Resolution we are now passing have in view obligations of the same kind as were incurred before the passing of the existing Act?

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
Generally, yes.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
It is only fair that before the Committee assents to the Resolution it should know what new obligations have been incurred—I do not say the details, but in a general way the nature of those obligations. We know that new features in the last Act were very largely concerned with the scheme for dealing with American securities. In fact, the whole of the discussions on the Second Reading and on the Committee stage of the Bill were taken up with the scheme for dealing with American securities. The Committee is naturally anxious to know if the Government have in view a new departure of the same magnitude as took place in relation to the former Bill. That, I think, is a matter upon which they should have given information to the Committee before they asked us to pass this Resolution. Had that been done, had it been stated clearly either that this was solely a matter of continuing the powers under the previous Act, or, if it went further in a general way, the extent to which it went further, there need have been none of this long discussion. But the Government is always anxious to hide matters. When the last Resolution was brought forward, my hon. Friend (Mr. King), with his usual vigilance, asked the then Secretary 1680 to the Treasury what it meant, and the Secretary to the Treasury said the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain on the Report stage, and it passed through Committee. No one else said a word. When the Report stage came, we were informed that there had been a misunderstanding, and that really what was intended was not that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should explain on the Report stage, but on the Second Reading. What we want now is that here, on the first occasion that they bring the matter before the House, they should give a general explanation. After all, the procedure in regard to these Financial Resolutions was invented for the purpose of giving greater power over financial business than over other Bills which came before the House. That is why we have the two stages, and surely the Government should recognise that that is the real constitutional position and should give a necessary explanation and thereby smooth the passage of their measure for themselves.

§ Mr. ROCH
I do not know whether we might have an answer to the question, which has been very clearly put, whether the scope of this Resolution is wider than that of the previous one, and whether any further transaction of a large nature is contemplated in this new one?

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
The scope of the Bill is the same as the last. There is nothing of a large nature, but there are one or two new points. For instance, I am not quite sure whether the question of relief to Scarborough was covered by the last Bill. There may be one or two points like that, but they are minor points of that description. The general scope of the Bill as to large matters is, I believe, the same. But all that will appear as soon as hon. Members get the Bill.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Are we to understand that that describes fully the extent, because under the last Bill there was a scheme for insuring against raids and bombardment? So we go beyond insurance now. It is compensation.

§ Mr. McKINNON WOOD
Questions arising out of the peculiar case of Scarborough.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Is it peculiar because the representative of Scarborough is a member of the Government?