HC Deb 05 June 1918 vol 106 cc1599-625

Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 4th June.]

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Adjourned Debate resumed on Amendment to Question (3rd June), That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses of the Central Emigration Authority constituted under any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment and powers of a Central Emigration Authority, and for other purposes relative thereto"—[Mr. Hewins.]

Which Amendment was, at the end of the Question, to add the words "not exceeding two thousand pounds in any year" —[Mr. Holt]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

Mr. LEIF JONES

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "two," and to insert the word "ten."

I confess I hoped that after what happened last night the Undersecretary would have risen to-day to say that he was prepared to put in the £10,000 which he himself named yesterday as being the outside expenditure of the new body in the coming year. I am very glad that the Government have put this question down as the first Order of the Day, because it will enable the House to determine what is, after all, a very simple question of principle, which is whether, when the House is setting up new Departments to which it is entrusting large and somewhat vague powers, necessarily undefined in great measure because the Department has not yet got to work, it will place any limit whatever to the expenditure which may be incurred by that body without any direct sanction of Parliament. On the question of principle, the Government have really decided this question already. No longer ago than last Thursday the Leader of the House gave expression to the views of the Government on this question. He was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) whether he would put in a limiting figure to the expenditure which might be incurred in connection with the War Savings Certificates. The Leader of the House said, in reply: I think it would be impossible to put in any limit, though I quite recognise that where it can be done it should certainly be done. That is the verdict of the Leader of the House on this question, that where it can be done it should be done, and that is why I did confidently expect my hon. Friend to tell us to-day that he would be prepared to do it. At any rate, I am going to ask the House to test this matter. My hon. Friend has stated that £10,000 is his limit, and I move, as an Amendment to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), that we insert £10,000 instead of £2.000 as the limit of expenditure, so that the Department will have full power to spend during the year the £10,000 which the Under-Secretary for the Colonies states will be the outside limit of that expenditure. I want to call the attention of the Committee to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said last night: One hon. Member has mentioned £50,000 a year as the cost. There is not the slightest intention or expectation or desire to go anywhere near that, and if the expenditure in the first year runs into £10,000 it would be greatly in excess of what is considered likely."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1918, col. 1543. That is the Government's own estimate of the probable, or possible, expenditure in the new Department in the coming year, and I therefore suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should accept the figure of £10,000, and if next year he finds that figure insufficient, it is very easy for him to come down to the House and ask for larger powers of spending for the new Department. There will be no unwillingness on the part of this House to grant money for purposes of which it approves in connection with this new Department, and I think the purposes will very likely be such as the House will approve; but I do claim that the House ought to be consulted before costly experiments are-entered into by new Departments, and by putting in this limit the House would secure that. The House has shown itself greatly concerned lately about the expenditure of new Departments, and the investigations of the Committee have shown that it is very necessary this matter should be gone into. My hon. Friend tells me that seven Departments have sat upon this particular Bill he is introducing, and I do not know whether we may take it, if left to themselves, the ordinary expenditure of the new Department will be seven times multiplied if seven Departments get to work upon it. I put it to the Committee that it is really useless for the Committee to complain after the event of the expenditure of a new Department if, when you are setting up a new Department with unknown powers, you give it unlimited powers of expenditure. I confidently ask the Committee to insert the limit of £10,000 which my hon. Friend himself has mentioned.

Mr. T. WILSON

Last night I spoke against this Money Resolution, and to-day I am prepared to vote for fixing the amount the Department is to spend. Anybody going through the accounts of new Departments must feel satisfied that there must be some limitation to the spending powers of Departments, and I cannot see why the hon. Member should not accept the Amendment to the Amendment, and so guard against the new Department following in the footsteps of other Departments and going in for spending recklessly and extravagantly. I said last night that a Department created only a few months ago was spending at the rate of £1,250,000 a year.

The CHAIRMAN

We are not now on the question of the Amendment, but only on the Amendment to the Amendment, whether the figure should be "two" or "ten." We had better dispose of that.

Mr. WILSON

I was going to say that the Amendment to the Amendment is an extremely generous offer to the Government. The hon. Gentleman said last night that £10,000 was quite sufficient for the first year, and, that being so, I do hope the Committee will back up those Members who are in favour of economy in these directions. Therefore, I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the Amendment to the Amendment.

Mr. HOLT

I moved the original Amendment, and I say at once that I do not object to the Amendment to the Amendment. I think I can show that the figures really come to very much the same thing. When I fixed on the figure £2,000 I was assuming that the Committee upstairs would strike out from the Bill all that power which relates to the transfer of powers from the Board of Trade to the new authority. Therefore, the figure was fixed upon the basis that the new authority would be confined to the additional work proposed by the Bill. If I understand the £10,000 is to include the work done at present by the Board of Trade and to be transferred to the new authority I have no objection to £10,000.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the words 'not exceeding ten thousand pounds in any year' be there added."

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins)

I think the Committee will agree that on two occasions, when I was pressed on this Money Resolution, I explained the factors we shall have to take into account, and which prevent an estimate of the exact figure of expenditure. The Bill itself distinctly provides machinery with which this business of emigration will be carried on. On the grounds on which the Bill is brought forward, it will lead to economy rather than to increase of expense in the management of machinery. But when you say, "Will you put a limit in the Bill; will you fix the exact sum?" I must again repeat the reasons which I gave last night why that is extremely undesirable, and, in fact, impossible. We are not dealing with normal facts. If you are going to have a precise estimate for the purpose of inserting a figure in the Bill, you must have something like normal conditions upon which you can base your calculation. We really do not know that at all. We are in a time of war. We do not know what is the amount of business this new Department will have to transact. We do not know what will be the precise staff.

The question was raised last night of what estimate was possible. There were suggestions differing widely about this, and I gave the figure of £10,000 as the amount of ordinary expenditure which might be normally expected on a Bill like this. When there is considered the character of the machinery that is to be set up, during the first year I should have thought this new central authority would have to be considering what schemes would have to be brought forward, the question of policy and plans, rather than engage in expenditure. That is why we want to settle on an authority now, so that we may be ready when the War ends, and I think the House might have reasonable confidence we should not expend a great amount of money. I am entirely of the view of hon. Members who have spoken about the necessity of insisting on economy. I, personally, am dead against any idea that emigration, or anything else, is to form the occasion for lax expenditure, and there is no one who has insisted more than I have on the desirability of the House of Commons being taken into full confidence with regard to schemes which involve national expenditure. That is the spirit in which we are approaching this Bill, and the object of the Bill is to secure that when we have to deal with these after-war problems we shall have carefully thought out the schemes, rather than leave it all to chaos and chance and do things hurriedly, which, as all my hon. Friends know, has led during the War to expenditure which we all deplore. With these explanations, I must object to putting in not only £10,000 but any limit at all.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. C. ROBERTS

I am bound to say that my hon. Friend has completed the case in favour of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. If there has been any doubt left in my own mind that it was desirable to have this limit he himself has convinced me that it is absolutely necessary. There is not,"> he said last night, the slightest intention, expectation, or desire of going anywhere near the sum of £50,000. If the expenditure in the first year runs into £10,000 it would be greatly in excess of what is considered likely."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1918, col 1543.] That is his intention. He is not going to spend £10,000, and he does not think it likely that such a sum will be spent. But there is something, some of us suggest, in this Bill extensive and expensive that in spite of his intention—

Mr. HEWINS

Not in the Bill, but in the War conditions.

Mr. ROBERTS

In the War conditions ! In the conditions of the time! How the conditions of the time are going to cause expenditure under this Bill I fail to see. In spite of his intentions, in spite of his expectations, in spite of the confident anticipations with which he attempts to beguile the House of Commons, there is something which is going really to expand, and we are going to have one of these new expenditures, and that is really the meaning of it. I suppose there is a new Minister or two concealed in this Bill. I really think that the Government have been so casual and so reckless in its development of Departments; they have been so lavish, so profuse, and so profligate in their provision of new Departments that it is time that the House of Commons asserted its power over these matters.

Mr. HEWINS

The hon. Member was not present on Friday when we considered the Second Reading of the Bill. I then explained that the Chairman of the new authority would be the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Mr. ROBERTS

I was present during some part of the time. At all events I really think it is time that the House of Commons controlled these Departments. This is a very good opportunity for us to assert ourselves. Unless we do, I am quite certain that this reckless extravagance and waste of public money, which we all know and deplore, will never be checked. It is quite true that when the strings of economy are loosened money is poured out like water, and everybody goes recklessly, casually, and carelessly to work. It is on these grounds that I think this is a very good opportunity, and I trust the House of Commons will at least assert a little control in this matter.

Mr. HOGGE

I shall vote against any money for the purpose of making this Bill effective, and I shall certainly support the limitation of the amount to £10,000. The House ought to remember that this Bill got its Second Reading on Friday afternoon when it was almost impossible to have forty Members present. That Bill, for which my hon. Friend is now asking this financial Resolution, was submitted to a body of this House of more than twelve or fourteen of its entire strength. I think that in all conscience £10,000 is enough to give this Department for the purpose of attempting to emigrate to the Colonies discharged men. For this reason: We have in operation now in this country, through other Departments, the power to settle these men in this country. We have granted money to these Departments for settling them on the land in England and in Scotland. The colonies have been bought or rented. They are not really full. There are but few of the possible men on any one of these.

The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member is getting away from the point.

Mr. HOGGE

I am addressing myself to the point as to whether we ought to give £10,000 for the purpose of carrying out work which is now being done here. I will try, Mr. Whitley, to keep within the rules of order, as, I submit very respectfully, I usually do, and I submit to your ruling if I am out of order. But my point is this: We are being asked for the purposes of this Bill to expend £10,000 to emigrate men for whom ample provision has already been made in this country. They are not placed because they are not there to place. The House must bear in mind that this is a Bill to deal with men who are in many cases still fighting in this War. This Bill, therefore, is not required until the War is over. Nobody on the Front Bench can say on what date this Bill will be operative. I will illustrate my difficulty: I have, for instance, tried to get a man's pension commuted in order to allow him to emigrate to the Colonies—

The CHAIRMAN

Really, this is only a Money Resolution saying what are the conditions and what the limit under which the Committee shall be empowered to entertain the proposals in the Bill. On these occasions we cannot enter into the merits or the needs of the Bill. The House has already read the Bill a second time.

Mr. HOGGE

I will complete what I have to say in a second by saying this: I shall vote, first of all, for the £10,000; afterwards I shall oppose it altogether, because this is a Bill to provide for the emigration of people who are not here to emigrate.

Major WOOD

The whole tone of the speech of my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill was so strangely out of harmony with the conclusions he put forward that I feel I must ask him one question. With us he feels that it is not an unreasonable function of the House of Commons to exercise as firm a control over finance as it can do. It would appear to me that it is just about the only useful function left to the House, and the strain on Members is somewhat high if they are to be told that even that function is to be withdrawn, from them. My question is, "What reason is there, other than the forms of the House—which, as we all know, can be perfectly well got round— why my hon. Friend should not accept this proposed Amendment to limit the expenditure to £10,000, for if he finds he wants more money he can perfectly well come to this House and ask for it?" Unless I, for one, have a much better explanation than we have yet heard why this Amendment cannot be accepted, I shall certainly support the £10,000.

Colonel Sir C. SEELY

I shall support this Amendment in regard to the £10,000 largely for the reasons that have been given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. During this time of war the only thing on which money can be spent is on the salaries of officials to guide and govern these intending emigrants! Anyone who has read anything about the history of English Colonies, and as to why English Colonies have been successful and German and other colonies have been great failures, knows that one of the great reasons for the success of English and the failure of other colonies have been the fact that English Colonies—

HON. MEMBERS

British Colonies!

Sir C. SEELY

— well, British Colonies!—have had few officials, and foreign colonies have had many officials. It, therefore, seems to me that at the time the only use that can be made of this money is to appoint officials! It is a well-known fact that for the purposes of emigration and the founding of Colonies officials are constantly doing a great deal more harm than good. It will be very wise, indeed, of this House to put a limit upon the amount that can be spent now, more particularly because, as has been pointed out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has just spoken that if a larger sum of money is required for the purpose—to be given to the men who have fought for us—there will be no difficulty in coming to the House and applying for it. This House would not for a moment stand in the way. The only object of having an unlimited amount in this Resolution is in order to enable an unlimited amount of money to be spent on officials; it is no good to the men to whom we want to give it. The officials will regulate, control, and interfere with, and as a matter of fact injure, emigration, which it is the intention, our intention, and that of everybody else, to promote. I would, therefore, press the House very strongly to insist upon this limitation of the amount that is required, for it can always be altered if it is necessary.

Mr. HEWINS

In answer to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Major Wood), I think, with a fair amount of experience of inquiries and investigations, I may say that if hon. Members will look at Clause 2 and see what the Bill is to do, they will agree that it is really quite impossible at the time to state precisely what the expenditure under the Bill for these necessary purposes of inquiry will be. I took the figure last night of £10,000, what we may call a normal figure, beyond which we are not likely to go. But we do not know at this present time, we have no idea at all, of the amount of investigation and organisation that has to be done to get any schemes of this kind in a condition to be brought forward for consideration. I do ask the House to give us some latitude in this Bill. I do not think the amount is at all likely to be exceeded, though there may be more expenses than I take it, because you may have to do the work in a very short time. We hope to secure our ends by co-operation with already existing bodies. Anybody who has had any experience at all of investigations, which, after all, in this case remember, cover the whole sphere of the British Empire, will, I am quite sure, realise that I am not asking for anything at all out of the way when I ask the House to give us a little latitude.

HON. MEMBERS

Name the sum!

Mr. HOLT

The hon. Member's speeches, although he tries to put forward a pleasant story, seem to make his extraordinary proposition more complicated. We all know perfectly well that war conditions prevail, but I do not accept these as an excuse for this expenditure. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he did not know what were the schemes which he would be obliged to lay before Parliament. This was one of the reasons, he said, why he could not compute the expenses. Surely, if he is going to lay schemes before Parliament —the Bill does not instruct him to do so— those schemes will provide for themselves! Any scheme of the sort will have to have a Money Resolution for carrying it out. Coming to the duties to which the hon. Gentleman referred just now, let us see what the Bill says has to be done. "To collect information in relation to emigration." That does not cost a great deal.

HON. MEMBERS

The Board of Trade!

Mr. HOLT

Next, "to advise and assist intending emigrants." He tells us that to assist does not mean to pay their passages, but to advise and to assist intending emigrants, and to give advice and assistance to the Board of Trade; also to make an Annual Report to Parliament. I venture to say that for £10,000 it would be quite easy for the right hon. Gentleman or for any Member of the Treasury Bench to perform the whole of these functions to the best of their ability.

Mr. PRINGLE

I quite well understand why the hon. Gentleman refuses to accept this Amendment. He told us last night—I think with a qualification in his statement which has not been noticed—that if the expenditure in the first year ran into £10,000, it would be greatly in excess of what is considered likely. Consequently, when he spoke of £10,000, he was merely taking the probable expenditure of the first year, which is merely for investigation. It seems to me that if we are to contemplate extravagant expenditure at the rate of £10.000 simply for the purposes of investigation, what are we to expect when this new body is in the full exercise of all the powers conferred upon it by Clause 2 of the Bill? The Committee, therefore, would be well advised, it seems to me, to insist upon this limitation of £10,000. The hon. Gentleman has told us practically that we on the Back Benches who have never been associated with expensive political organisations have no idea what these researches cost. May I point out that we are at a stage at which we are considering problems of reconstruction, and if one thing is clear more than another it is that whatever has been the practice of the Government during the War in regard to reckless expenditure upon officials, in the period after the War the most rigid economy will have to be exercised? In these circumstances I think we should take this opportunity of, as it were, setting a standard. We all know the assertion of the Government is that there is to be a saving and a co-ordination of different Departments. The word "co-ordination" has become as blessed as many other catchwords to which we have been accustomed in the past; but if there is to be this saving, there should not be the slightest difficulty in fixing such a limit as my right hon. Friend proposes.

I do not desire to enter into the abstract merits of the proposal which is embodied in this Bill, but obviously this measure cannot come into operation for some time to come, and if the House allows this new body unlimited expenditure in the matter of its officials, we may take it that whatever provisions are made from the Treasury Bench that the new officials will grant salaries in proportion to their own idea of their merits and value to the State. We have had experience in matters of this kind which have been dealt with elsewhere. In the case of one of our new Departments I notice that salaries of £1,500 and £l,000 have been granted to all sorts of people who probably in their past careers never were fortunate enough to earn anything equal to those amounts. We shall have the same position of things in this new Department, and consequently if the House sets its face against extravagance of this kind, we may take it that the salaries will be placed upon a reasonable scale. We must also remember that at the present time, in appointing officials, the tendency will be to appoint them at salaries based upon the present period of inflation of prices, which is a very serious matter. We do not look forward to a continuance of inflated prices after the War. It is, therefore, important that we should see that the officials now being appointed to life posts should not to any great extent be paid upon this extravagant basis. The insertion of this limitation will, therefore, have an effect in reducing the scale of salaries as well as in limiting the number of officials appointed.

There is another reason why I think this limitation should be imposed. I believe it would result in a limitation of the number of officials. After all, in the immediate future, the work is to be one simply of inquiry. There is a Ministry in existence now whose sole duty it is to go into inquiries in respect of reconstruction. This question of emigration is essentially a reconstruction problem, and it is not necessary, it seems to me, to have a new Ministry to enter upon these inquiries regarding emigration, for they could obtain a large part of the necessary information from the officials connected with existing Departments, and conse- quently I believe it will be wasteful to have officials simply for the purpose of research. All that is needed for this purpose is a sort of skeleton organisation to send out to the people who know questionnaires asking for answers to particular questions regarding the position for emigration, its possibilities, and the number of people available for emigration.

The CHAIRMAN

These are questions which it would be more proper to discuss during the Committee stage of the Bill and not on this Resolution.

Mr. PRINGLE

I submit that the amount to be spent depends upon the amount of work to be performed, and if I am able to show that the actual work—

The CHAIRMAN

Quite so; but the proper place to do that is in Committee on the Bill. This Resolution will only set the limit within which further restrictions can be proposed in Committee.

Mr. PRINGLE

I do not desire to develop my point. I was only trying to show that the imposition of the limitation would prevent the initiation of extravagant schemes of research and inquiry, such as are apparently contemplated by the Government. I was simply dealing with the statement as to the costliness of these inquiries, and I was merely-desirous of pointing out that while it might be costly to have these researches made by new bodies set up independently for the first time, such inquiries need not be so costly when you have within the Government itself the means of ascertaining information, and therefore it only really requires co-operation between the different Departments. These seem to me to be absolutely conclusive reasons why the Committee should insist upon this limitation, and I hope hon. Members who have professed their ardour for economy will take this opportunity of showing the reality of their fervour by going into the Lobby in favour of this limitation.

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

I want to ask my hon. Friend a practical question. I knew nothing of this subject until I listened to the hon. Member's speech and the speeches opposing this proposal, and therefore I come to this particular discussion with something of an unprejudiced mind, although we know that unprejudiced minds in this House are very difficult to find. I understand from the remarks of my hon. Friend opposite on Friday last that the expenses which he asks for are merely for the first year of administration, and that these administrative expenses are to be confined to inquiries. The money he asks for is not for the actual emigration of men, and all that he is asking for is money to be spent upon inquiries.

Mr. HEWINS

And organisation.

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

Yes, and organisation. Surely these expenses must be something similar to those in the case of Royal Commissions. I have been at the trouble during the last ten or twelve minutes of looking at what was spent upon Royal Commissions last year, and I take it that they were very important inquiries, very much of the nature indicated by my hon. Friend opposite, and I find that with regard to the Sugar Supply Commission the cost last year was £680—

The CHAIRMAN

Really this is not relevant to the question of this Resolution. The sole question before us is whether or not there should be added to the proposed Resolution a limit of £10,000, and the question now being raised by the right hon. Gentleman is quite outside that proposal.

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

I was not going into the question of the duties of these various bodies. I was only going to name the sum which was spent by them as some indication of the sum which ought to be spent in regard to this proposal, and surely I am in order in doing that!

The CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentlemen will recollect that this Resolution, whether it is in a limited or unlimited form, will have to appear in a Clause of the Bill, and it is when that Clause is in Committee that the specific cases now being raised by the right hon. Gentleman may be raised.

Mr. JONES

I moved a limit of £10,000 because I have had some experience in these matters. I have sat for some time as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and it has been our duty to investigate the expenditure of Royal Commissions and Committees of Inquiry, and in putting the sum at £10,000 I was guided by the fact that the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Resolution stated that sum, and also by knowing that £10,000 would enable extensive inquiries to be made and valuable results to be procured. That estimate was based upon the spending of other bodies, and if we are not allowed to refer to the spending of other bodies in this connection, I do not know how we can justify the selection of a sum of £10,000.

The CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that his own speech had no interference from the Chair. Several occasions of this kind arise in the course of the Parliamentary year, and I have to guard myself on these points.

Major WOOD

Do I understand that this Resolution will appear in a Clause in the Bill?

The CHAIRMAN

If this Amendment is added, a similar Amendment will have to be inserted by the Government in a Clause in the Bill or else I shall not pass that Clause, and that is the occasion when further details of this character may be gone into.

Major WOOD

If this Resolution is not limited, do I understand that a Clause will still appear in the Bill on which it will be open to the Committee to deal with this point?

The CHAIRMAN

There is now a Money Clause in the Bill, and even if this Resolution is not limited now, an Amendment can be made in the Committee on the Bill inserting a limit of this or any other kind.

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

I accept that ruling, but I wish to point out to my hon. Friend opposite and to the House that a great number of inquiries are held every year covering every sort and kind of questions, such as the distribution of food, and matters of that sort, and in no case does the expenditure exceed the sum of £7,000. If that be the case, in regard to bodies such as Royal Commissions, surely the inquiries which my hon. Friend opposite wishes to institute in regard to emigration to the Colonies can be conducted for a sum not exceeding that which Royal Commissions spend making inquiries, not only in this country, but all over the Empire upon very similar objects? My hon. Friend mentioned the question of administration. If anything in the nature of special expenditure has to be met in excess of these inquiries, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee what those expenses are, and we could then judge whether they are extravagant or not. If they were at all extravagant, we can easily see from the speech of my hon. Friend that he himself would be the first to endeavour to get the Department to cut down unnecessary expenditure. I ask him if he cannot give that information to the Committee, and thus save us the trouble of going to a Division.

Mr. OUTHWAITE

I desire to support the Amendment, but, in view of your ruling, I find it very difficult to do so On the occasion of the Second Reading. we were not permitted by a ruling from the Chair to argue that this Bill was unnecessary, because opportunities would be given to the discharged soldiers in this country. When this Amendment was moved, I thought it would afford an opportunity of pointing out that if the objects of the Bill were as stated by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill the sum of £10,000 would be sufficient for the purpose. If one is not permitted to argue on those lines, he may appear in the position of one wishing to wreck the Bill. I wish to say that this £10,000 will be sufficient, but I do not want to appear in the public eye as one who merely wishes to wreck a Bill which is introduced for a useful purpose. If the Bill is limited to the purposes set forth by the hon. Gentleman, I hold that £10,000 will be more than sufficient, but if, on the other hand, it is proposed under the unlimited powers of the Bill to extend its operations vastly, then a sum far greater than £10,000 will be required. I think the House should set this limit of £10,000 so as to keep the hon. Gentleman within the purposes that he has set forth as being those of the Bill. We quite clearly see that he might spend £10,000 on set ting up the organisation. We might then have a cessation of hostilities and have millions of men discharged. If we do not have this limitation, he might operate this Bill by an Order in Council, or a Proclamation, and he might proceed to spend millions of money in sending discharged men out of this country. It is therefore essential in order to keep control upon the operations under the Bill to pass this limitation which we propose.

Sir D. GODDARD

There is evidently considerable fear in the minds of many members of the Committee that the Resolution in its present limitless form may be a source of great danger. Those fears have been largely augmented by the speech of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, because in the first instance he said that he could not accept this Amendment of £10,000, and then he went on to say that he could not accept any limit whatever. Those were the words that he used. That seems to open the door exceedingly wide, and, although it was followed by some very valuable suggestions on the score of economy which should be practised by this House, I think we should have taken more thought of those words on economy if there had been a little more practice available. When we remember that this is only for the expenditure of the first year and that as this movement developes and expands it will be the easiest thing in the world for a larger amount to be put forward in the Estimates to cover any future expenses, there does not seem to be the slightest reason why a certain limit, at all events, should not be put on the expenditure of the first year. I am not going to debate whether £10,000 is the right limit or not. I take it that it was put forward because it was the figure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman as likely to exceed anything that might be expended, and I do not think it is right to pass this Resolution without inserting some limit.

The CHAIRMAN

I really think that I must explain further to the Committee. This is not a Vote at all. Each year, including the first year, under this Resolution, the moneys to be voted must be brought before Parliament. I think it my duty to make that plain to the Committee. This is not voting any money whatsoever.

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

On the point f Order. You tell us that this is not the vote of any money, but, if the Amendment to the Resolution is carried, then surely a sum of money limited in extent would be voted by this House, and that sum would not exceed £10,000!

The CHAIRMAN

That is exactly where I am sure the Committee does not apprehend the point. The right hon. Gentleman has been at the Treasury. The words "provided by Parliament" mean brought forward in the Estimates each year and authorised by Parliament. That must be clearly in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. L. JONES

On the point of Order. I do not think the Committee is under any misapprehension. Under the Amendment, as I understood it when I moved it—that it would not be open to the Department, supposing the Committee passes this Bill in any shape, to spend more than £10,000 in any year on the purposes of the Bill. That would be the effect of it. If we do not carry my Amendment, it will be open to them to spend to any extent. Subsequently that expenditure may or may not be submitted to the House. It may come out of the Vote of Credit, the terms of which are very wide, and the House may find itself confronted with very large expenditure which has never been submitted to it and only comes before it two years afterwards in the Appropriation Bill.

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

You have been good enough to say that I was at the Treasury, and that I am mistaken in the form of this Resolution. I ventured to assert that if the Amendment were carried the sum of money which would be provided by the House would be limited to £10,000. The words of the Amendment are these: That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament a sum not exceeding £10,000 in any year. That means that the House will be recommended to provide a sum not exceeding £10,000. Surely that will be the effect of carrying this Amendment! It will not sanction the expenditure, but it will recommend the House to provide a sum subsequently to be inserted in the Estimates and to be sanctioned by the Appropriation Bill.

The CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman is really wrong there. It is not the effect of any of these Money Resolutions. They are merely preliminary to any stage of a Bill involving money, and the discussion is going quite outside its proper limits, because of the very misapprehension which has evidently been in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, that this, as it were, is a Vote in Supply.

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

I am very sorry to press the Chair, but I do not wish to be misunderstood. What I ventured to say was that if this Amendment were carried it would be a recommendation by the Committee to the House to provide a sum. Surely the words "That it is expedient to authorise the payment" are a recommendation by the Committee to somebody, and that somebody is the House.

The CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman himself has proposed so many of these Resolutions from the other side of the House that he must know that although those words "it is expedient to authorise" are used it is the ancient usage that nothing involving a charge may proceed in a Bill except it be originated in Committee of the whole House in this way, but beyond that the effect of this Resolution does not go.

Mr. HOLT

On the point of Order. The Financial Resolution which is in the Bill reads as follows: All expenses of the authority under this Act, including any such salaries and remuneration aforesaid, to such amount ns may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. If these limiting words are inserted in the Resolution, they will also have to be inserted in the Bill, and the effect will be that it will foe illegal for the Treasury in the first instance to sanction a sum in excess of £10,000.

The CHAIRMAN

That is absolutely right. There is no need to debate this point any further. The only thing would be that without another Bill, not a Vote in Supply, the amount of £10,000 could not be exceeded.

Captain BARNETT

I rise as a loyal supporter of His Majesty's Government to appeal to my hon. Friend the Undersecretary to accept this Amendment. I strongly sympathise with his desire for elasticity. He has got a new Department, and it is impossible to tell exactly what the demands of that Department will be, but I ask my hon. Friend to accept the assurance already given him that if more money is wanted he has only got to come down to the House and the House will generously honour any claim that he puts forward. I trust my hon. Friend will see his way to accept this Amendment. If he does not, I shall reluctantly vote in the Lobby with him, because I hope I have got sufficient sense of political perspective not to invite a disaster of the first magnitude on this question. In view of the opinion on both sides of the House that the House of Commons has lost control of finance, it is natural that an Amendment like this should be seized upon in order to assert a perfectly right and proper principle, and my hon. Friend must simply regard his Bill as the corpus vile upon which this experiment of the reinforcement of our financial power is being tried, and not think that it is in any hostility to him or to the Colonial Office which he so ably represents, that he is urged to accept the Amendment.

Captain STANLEY WILSON

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

The CHAIRMAN

withheld his consent, and declined then to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.

Mr. WHYTE

The rulings which you have given will make it appear to anyone reading this Debate to-morrow that very narrow issues are at stake, and that in advancing arguments for or against this Amendment those who have spoken have had to take very narrow ground, but the issue itself is not narrow. There are very few occasions upon which it is possible for the House to reclaim any part of that financial control which it has so largely lost during the War, and upon this occasion what the Committee asks is that there should be on the part of the Government a statutory recognition of the need for some limit. The guarantee which has been offered by the Minister in charge of the Bill is that he personally lays his hand on his heart and says, "I am a great apostle of economy; indeed, I am a professor of economy." Political economy is one thing; economy is quite another thing. I am not at all surprised, after the experience of the last four years, that the Committee should take any opportunity, even an apparently small opportunity, of asserting its right to control expenditure. Therefore, though the issue seems to be narrow, the principle at stake is not narrow, and though the gate which the Under-Secretary has opened to an avenue of expenditure may be small, if one may judge from the speeches made on the Second Reading, the avenue he invites us to enter upon is by no means short. It is on this ground that there is a considerable degree of uneasiness. It may seem a petty thing to challenge the right of the Government to spend £10,000 or £50,000 at a moment when we are spending £7,000,000 a day, but the Committee is still within its rights, and is acting with a due sense of the political importance of the issue at stake, when it insists that the Government should recognise some limit of expenditure in regard to a question of this kind.

Mr. MOLTENO

I would urge the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Resolution to accept this limiting Amendment. I have been a supporter of economy in this House and have very frequently heard the Government use the tu quoque argument that the House is always urging them to make expenditure—that in the aggregate hon. Members press them to economise, but individually press them to pile up expenditure. Here is a clear case of the Government forcing expenditure on the House of Commons. They are asking for expenditure without limit. The arguments used by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Resolution are such as compel us to go to a vote on this question. He has told us that the cost might be so great that he could not even say that £1,000,000 would be enough. He would put no limit on the expenditure. That is exactly what the House of Commons wants to do. It wants to impose a reasonable limit, and it has taken the limit which the hon. Gentleman has given us as being reasonable. Therefore the Committee is quite reasonable in urging him to accept his own limit. There seems to have been some confusion as to the Resolution and the effect of the Amendment. If we insert a limit, the Government will be unable to spend more than the sum named. That is the right thing to do when such vast Votes of Credit are passed and we do not know what may be spent out of them. The Amendment reduces the matter to a comparatively small compass and will not allow the door to be opened to indefinite and unlimited expenditure. I want to give the Government some better inducement to accept the Amendment than was given by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Barnett), who, although be supported the Amendment, said he should support the Government in the Lobby. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that if ho does not accept the Amendment I shall go into the Lobby and vote against him.

Mr. D. MASON

From the answer given: by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Resolution it would appear that he is basing his view of the matter on the protests which have been made on previous Financial Resolutions relating to the Insurance Bill and other measures, when the House protested against an unlimited amount of expenditure being authorised. That may account for the puzzling attitude of the Under-Secretary. In the case of those Bills there was a limit to the expenditure in the measures them selves. For instance, in the Insurance Bill there were specified amounts to be expended on certain things, so that one could estimate more or less the amount involved. This Bill contains no limit. Actually the Committee is asked to, give an unlimited Vote of Credit. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that. He himself said that he does not anticipate the expenditure will go up to £50,000. If it can go up to £50,000, it can go up to £1,000,000. This is an unheard-of proposal. To ask us to give an unlimited vote for emigration is to ask the Committee to support an absurd proposal. I would urge the hon. Gentleman to reconsider it.

General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS

I hope the Under-Secretary will take this matter again into consideration. I certainly wish to support the Government in every way, but it is not right for the hon. Gentleman to put this great strain upon our loyalty. Why should he? We want to

give him all the money he wants, but we refuse to give him a blank cheque. Let him get up and name any figure and I believe the Committe would accept it at once. We object to giving him a blank cheque because blank cheques are not always returned to the House of Commons like they are at the Ministry of Munitions. We do not like them. The Undersecretary is trying us rather hard. If he wants £50,000, put in the £50,000. Will £20,000 suit him, or will £30,000 suit him? If so; let the figure be put in. But the Committee will not give him a blank cheque. Although I am a strong supporter of the Government I object very much to my loyalty being tested in this way, and I shall certainly vote for the Amendment unless the Under-Secretary gives way.

Question put, "That the words 'not exceeding ten thousand pounds in any year' be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 129.

Division No. 49.] AYES. [4.53 p.m.
Agnew, Sir George William Hinds, John Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham
Anderson, William C. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H. Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Baker, Rt. Hon. Harold T. (Accrington) Hogge, James Miles Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Holmes, Daniel Turner Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Houston, Robert Paterson Rowlands, James
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Rowntree, Arnold
Barton, Sir William Jacobsen, Thomas Owen Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Bentham, George Jackson John, Edward Thomas Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)
Birrell. Rt. Hon. Augustine Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Sherwell, Arthur James
Booth, Frederick Handel Jowett, Frederick William Snowden, Philip
Bowden, Major G. R. Harland Kenyon, Barnet Somervell, William Henry
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Taylor, John w. (Durham)
Cator, John Lane-Fox, Major G. R. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Chancellor, Henry George Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John
Cochrane, Cecil Algernon Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M (Falk.B'ghs) Thomas, Rt. Hon. James Henry (Derby)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Collins, Sir W. (Derby) Maden, Sir John Henry Toulmin, Sir George
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Mallalieu, Frederick William Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth) Manfield, Harry Walters, Sir John Tudor
Dixon, Charles Harvey Marshall, Arthur Harold Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B. Mason, David M. (Coventry) Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah
Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Mason, Robert White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Essex, Sir Richard Walter Molteno, Percy Alport Whitehouse, John Howard
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Morrell, Philip Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas p.
Galbraith, Samuel Outhwaite R. L. Whyte. Alexander F.
Gilbert, J. D. Parrott, Sir James Edward Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford Partington, Hon. Oswald Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Goldstone, Frank Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding) Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough) Philipps, Maj.-Gen.Sir Ivor(S'hampton) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Haslam, Lewis Priestley. Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Yeo, Sir Alfred William
Hayward, Evan Pringle, William M. Ft. Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Helme, Sir Norval Watson Raffan, Peter Wilson
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Holt and Mr. Leif Jones.
Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.) Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Barnett, Captain R. W. Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)
Amery, L. C. M. S. Barnston, Major Harry Bigland, Alfred
Archdale, Lieut. E. M. Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Bird, Alfred
Astor, Hon. Waldorf Beach, William F. H. Boles, Lieut-Colonel Dennis Fortesous
Baird, John Lawrence Beale, Sir William Phipson Boyton, Sir James
Baldwin, Stanley Bellairs Commander C. W. Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Bull, Sir William James Hickman Brig.-Gen. Thomas E. Pulley, C. T.
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hills, John Waller Randies, Sir John S.
Butcher, Sir John George Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)
Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton) Hope, John Deans (Haddington) Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)
Cecil Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hughes, Spencer Leigh Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.
Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon) Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Colvin, Col. Richard Beale Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Robinson, Sidney
Cowan, Sir W. H. Joynson-Hicks, William Rutherford, Col. Sir J.(Lancs.,Darwen)
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)
Craik. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Larmor, Sir J. Samuels, Arthur W.
Currie, George W. Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Davles, Ellis William (Eifion) Lindsay, William Arthur Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Spear, Sir John Ward
Denniss, E. R. B. Lonsdale, James R. Spicer, Rt. Hon. sir Albert
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Stanley, Rt.Hon.Sir A.H.(Asht'n-u-Lyne)
Du Pre, Major W. Baring Loyd, Archie Kirkman Stanton, Charles Butt
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) McCalmont, Brig. Gen. Robert C. A. Stewart, Gershom
Faber, Col. W. V. (Hants, W.) MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh Stoker, R, B.
Fell, Sir Arthur McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St.Augustine's)! Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam) Magnus, Sir Philip Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel- Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)
Foster, Philip Staveley Mond, Rt. Hon, Sir Alfred Tickler, T. G.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S. Walker, Colonel William Hall
Gilmour, Lieut-Col. John Neville, Reginald J. N. Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter) Whiteley, Sir H. J.
Hambro, Angus Valdemar Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)
Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George Norton Griffiths, Sir J. Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J. (K'ton) Palmer, Godfrey Mark Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)
Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Parker, James (Halifax) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Harmood-Banner. Sir J. S Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Pike(Darl'gton) | Wilson-Fox, Henry
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton. Beds) Pennefather, De Fonblanque Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)
Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, s.) Perkins, Walter Frank Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Peto, Basil Edward Younger, Sir George
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) Philipps, Captain Sir Owen (Chester) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord E.
Hewins, William Albert Samuel Pratt, J. W. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.
Hibbert, Sir Henry F. Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. PRINGLE

In view of the Division which has just been taken, I think the Government would be well advised to adjourn any further discussion, with a view to reconsidering their position. Clearly a very large number of Members of the House honestly wish to place a limit on the expenditure under this Bill. The Division has been taken in regard to a limit of £10,000, but it is not—

The CHAIRMAN

This question cannot be reopened at this stage.

Mr. PR INGLE

Would it not be possible for the Government itself to propose a larger sum, say a limit of £20,000?

The CHAIRMAN

That should have been brought up as an Amendment to the Amendment. The point has been disposed of for this stage.

Colonel COLLINS

Would it be out of order for the Government to move a limit of, say, £50,000?

Mr. PRINGLE

Before a Division is taken on the main Question, surely the Government might take the opportunity of making some announcement as to their views with regard to this matter of limitation. Such an announcement would be a guidance to the Committee, for, after all, this Bill is to go upstairs, and be fought out there. I hope the Government will reconsider their position.

The CHAIRMAN

The question really cannot be reopened now, either by the Government or by any hon. Member.

Mr. L. JONES

Although it may not be in order for the Government to reopen the question, surely it is open to them to withdraw the Resolution, which clearly has little support in the Committee, and they could introduce another Resolution which would embody views which, on further consideration, may occur to their mind.

Mr. PRINGLE

I will move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"

Mr. D. MASON

I understand it is ruled that it is not possible to amend the finance Resolution now, but surely the Government might make an announcement which would meet the case.

The CHAIRMAN

The Government cannot amend the Finance Clause. The Committee can do so, but this is not the proper occasion.

Mr. JONES

On a point of Order. Would it not be in order for the Govern- ment to withdraw this Resolution and to introduce another Financial Resolution in different terms?

The CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of Order.

Mr. PRINGLE

I move, "That you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," and I think the Division we have just had justifies the adoption of that course.

The CHAIRMAN

I cannot accept that Motion; I do not feel justified in doing so.

Mr. HOGGE

I stated, on a previous occasion, when I was not quite in order, my reasons for opposing this Resolution, and I propose to repeat them, without, however, occupying much time. I will again point out to the Committee that at the present moment there is in this country ample power possessed by the Government to secure sufficient land for the purposes aimed at by this Bill—for the settlement of discharged men. We have had Reports from the Government from time to time—

The CHAIRMAN

I have already said, at an earlier stage, that that argument is not permissible on the present occasion.

Mr. HOGGE

I understand you to rule that the arguments I am using now are not the correct arguments to be used on this occasion, although my proposal is not itself out of order. My point is that the Government should not be given any money for the purposes of this Bill, and that, I take it, is quite in order. But I understand you to say further that in speaking on that point I am not at liberty to refer to the question of the settlement of soldiers in this country?

The CHAIRMAN

This Resolution does not give any money to the Government or anyone else; it simply empowers the Committee on the Bill to consider the proposal.

Mr. HOGGE

I contend we ought not to give the Government power to take any money for the purposes of this Bill. It is one thing to let the Government have access to money in order to conduct an investigation such as my hon. Friend suggested in one of his earlier speeches in order to see what can be done under this Bill, but there is ample provision in other Ministries for this purpose, and again I say we ought not to allow the Government to have access to any money for the purpose of carrying out a Bill which in our opinion will be absolutely worthless and which also is absolutely unnecessary, seeing that ample provision is already made under other Acts applying to this country and to the Colonies.

Mr. C. ROBERTS

It apparently is in the power of the Government to withdraw this Resolution and to bring forward another. There has already been a great waste of public time, owing to my hon. Friend's persistence in this course. Surely it would be better for the Government to defer to what is obviously the sense of this Committee, and if they do so it will tend to smooth the path of this Bill and lighten future discussions; otherwise we shall certainly have to discuss this question again. I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will recognise what is the obvious intention of the Committee.

Mr. HEWINS

I have already done my best to explain our position in connection with this Resolution. There really is nothing we can give way on at this moment, but between now and the Report stage I shall be very willing to consider the views which have been put forward, subject to the condition that we shall not be hampered in carrying out the objects of the Bill.

Mr. OUTHWAITE

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is not quite willing to accept the limitation. But that is not the only matter with which we are concerned. I desire to support my hon. Friend in the view that this House ought not to grant any money at all for the purposes of this Bill, and I wish to point out that so far as the policy set forth in this Bill is concerned it can be carried out without the expenditure of public money, as those Colonies which desire to attract emigrants can really do the whole of the work proposed to be done by this Bill. It' must be remembered it is not possible to send emigrants out unless the Colonies desire to receive them. It is on these grounds that I oppose the expenditure of any money.

Mr. PRINGLE

I wish to gather exactly what was said by the Undersecretary for the Colonies as to the intentions of the Government. I understood him to say that the Government will consider this matter before the Report stage of the Resolution and that they will endeavour to meet the views of the Committee in so far as that can be done with- out hampering the operations of the Bill. [Mr. HEWINS indicated assent.] I think it is due to the hon. Gentleman to say that our assiduity and persistence in this matter is largely attributable to the appeal made on a recent occasion by the Leader of the House for help from the House in matters of economy. It is really owing to the advice of the right hon. Gentleman that we pressed our views on the Undersecretary, but in view of the promise he has made—a promise for which I desire to thank him personally—I would suggest to my hon. Friends who are considering the advisability of dividing on the Resolution, that they might now well abstain from taking that course.

Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses of the Central Emigration Authority constituted under any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment and powers of a Central Emigration Authority, and for other purposes relative thereto.

Main Question put, and agreed to; Resolution to be reported upon Friday.