§ 45. Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether the total cost to the nation of the Select Committee appointed by the House of Lords in the Douglas-Pennant case, distinguishing the legal costs and the other costs for which the Government was directly responsible and the costs of the officers unjustly accused which were paid by the Government?
§ Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House)The total cost to public funds of the Douglas-Pennant Inquiry is estimated 701 at £9,585. This amount is made up as follows:—
| (a) Legal costs | £3,251 |
| (b) Other costs | 1,489 |
| (c) Costs of officers implicated | 4,845 |
§ The last item is not, however, final, as the bills of costs have not yet been taxed.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERCan this House have an opportunity of debating the propriety of paying these costs?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThey will come up in some estimate, I think.
§ Mr. BILLINGWill the right hon. Gentleman cause these accounts to be laid upon the table of the House so that Members may have an opportunity of seeing how these figures are arrived at—£4,000 for the officers' costs?
§ Mr. W. THORNETrade Union rate of wages!
§ Sir J. BUTCHERWill these sums appear in the Estimates so that we can, if desired, challenge them?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWithout having looked into the Estimates, I cannot be sure, but I feel quite certain that they will be in a form to enable the House to deal with them.
§ Mr. BILLINGMay I have a reply to my question: whether the accounts will be laid upon the table of the House?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI hardly think that it will be worth while.
§ Mr. HOUSTONHave the Government contemplated the recovery of these costs from the lady in question?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWNo, Sir.
§ Mr. W. THORNEDoes the right hon. Gentleman think that the legal profession are going to "blackleg" one another?
§ 46. Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that last year a Select Committee was appointed by the House of Lords, against the advice of the Government, to inquire into the Douglas-Pennant case, and that such committee was appointed by a small majority in a House when only 111 Members voted out of a total of about 700 entitled to vote; whether, as the result of the appointment of this committee, heavy costs were thrown on the public purse with no corresponding 702 public advantage; and whether he will introduce legislation restricting the powers of the House of Lords to appoint Select Committees and to involve the country in expenditure of public money?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe Government are not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERIn view of the facts stated in the earlier part of my question, will the right hon. Gentleman deal with this matter as part of the general question of the reform of the Second Chamber?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI believe that the facts, as stated, are substantially accurate, but I hope that the result of the reform of the Second Chamber will make it unnecessary to deal with this matter.
Sir J. D. REESCan the right hon. Gentleman say why this expenditure, though unfortunate, is such rank blasphemy in the House of Lords when the House of Commons spends large sums without objection?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI think the reason is that the Members of the House of Commons feel that in this case, at least, the House of Commons was right and that the other Assembly was wrong.