MR. GIBSON BOWLES reminded the House that an Amendment had already been accepted by which any new service not included in the ordinary Estimates for the year was to be excluded from the twenty days computation. The paragraph now before the House dealt with the same kind of matter in a somewhat different way. It dealt not only with new service, but also with new matter, and it provided that any additional Estimate for any new service or matter not included in the original Estimates for the year should be submitted for consideration in the Committee of Supply on some day not later than two days before the Committee was closedby which was meant, he presumed, the last day but one of the allotted days. The House having already provided, in the manner he had described, for Estimates dealing with new services, he proposed to move the omission of the words "service or " from line 56. MR. A. J. BALFOUR intimated his willingness to accept the Amendment. MR. GIBSON BOWLES thought he would also have to ask for the insertion of the words "other than one of the TELLERS FOR THE NOESSir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan. allotted days." Such a provision had been made with regard to new services. The effect of that, in conjunction with the Amendment a ready agreed to, would be that a new service not provided for in the ordinary Estimates for the year would be entitled to a day other than one of the allotted days, and would necessarily fall outside the automatic closure; and nothing the Government could do would prevent its discussion. In the case of something which was, not a new service, but new matter such, for instance, as the purchasing of a piece of land for a new War Office, which would be new matter, but under an old service he thought it was right that it should be submitted two days before the be a satisfactory arrangen.ent, though it Committee closed. That would probably was a little open to doubt. MR. DILLON strongly objected to the Amendment. The House had discussed the distinction between "service" and "matter," and expressed much doubt as to whether "matter" ought not to be included in the previous concession, and so be exempted from the automatic closure. It would be very unfortunate now to introduce a distinction which might be used to limit the concession already made. He would suggest that the whole of the paragraph should be omitted. It was not only wholly unnecessary, in view of the concession they had obtained, but absolutely ineffective. a Saturday. He admitted that it was not a very important point, but as this was going to be a permanent Order, he thought they ought to provide for all the cases which they could fairly foresee. When the point was granted some years ago, it was thought to be a valuable concession; but when. last year, for the first time, it was sought to be brought into operation in connection with the loan to the Viceroy of Wu-Chang, the ruling of the Chairman of Committees was that, inasmuch as the loan had been placed on the Notice Paper two days before the automatic closure came into operation, it satisfied the provision as to being submitted to the consideration of the Com-Fridays' stand part of the Question." mittee, although the Committee had not had an opportunity of saying a word on the subject. By that ruling, the whole effect of the provision was nullified, and the proper course would be to omit the entire paragraph. Amendment proposed "In line 61, to leave out the word 'Fridays', and insert the words 'days of one sitting.' (Mr. Gibson Bowles.) (6.36.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR said that the history of this paragraph was that the right hon. Gentleman opposite asked the House to put this provision in the sessional Order to prevent some new Estimate being sprung upon the Committee which had never been dealt with at all. This year they had gone a step farther with regard to new services. They deliberately excluded new matter from that special treatment, and he thought, therefore, that they would be going back if they now said that new matter might be introduced without any notice at all. It was in order to preserve "matter" that he thought this paragraph, in the amended form, ought to be retained in the Bill. He thought that in the interests of the House as distinguished from the interests of the Government of the day, anxious to get through the Estimates without friction, it was desirable that the paragraph should remain in, and that the word "matter" should remain. This was a safeguard which was not without its value. The House should not part with that safeguard, and as it was a small matter, as there really were no rights of private Members involved, he thought they might decide it without a division. Question proposed, "That the word MR. A. J. BALFOUR said he hoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE said that when the Rules were considered in 1896 there was a most distinct promise made in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the working of this Supply Rule. That Select Committee had never been appointed. The merits of the Amendment he had to submit were clear, and needed no further explanation ; and, unless the Government undertook to do something in this direction, he should take a division. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name. The Amendment was "In line 62, after 'Sittings, 'to add-' But these Resolutions shall not take effect until the House has adopted a scheme allotting a due proportion of the days for Supply to each of the different classes of Estimates." *MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid, after hearing the hon. Member, that I must rule his Amendment out of order, which proposes to suspend the operation of this Resolution. MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE reminded Mr. Speaker that a Resolution very much to this effect was allowed to be considered in 1896, on the 28th of February, and that was the reason why he had proposed this Amendment. *MR. SPEAKER: I have not referred to that case, and there may be some difference between the two, but I must adhere to my ruling now. Main Question, as amended, again proposed. {28 APRIL 1902} *(6.48.) MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe) said that before this Rule was finally passed he wished to say a few words. The first paragraph allocated a particular day to Supply, and he agreed with the fixing of a particular day in each week for Supply. Indeed so far back as 1892 he moved a Resolution which contained a recommendation to that effect. But when they came to the second paragraph, which allocated a certain number of days for Supply and the carrying of a large number the end of Estimates by closure at of that period, his opinion of the He had Rule was a very different one. watched the operation of this Rule since it came into operation in 1896, and he felt that it had lowered the character of the House and had not conduced to efficiency in the discharge of its business. In all respects he believed the operation of this limitation and closure part of this Rule had been disastrous. The Government had been relieved of that incentive and motive which every Government used to have, and ought to have, of seeing to the proper conduct of the business of Supply. It mattered little or nothing to the Government under this Rule how the time in Committee of Supply was occupied, because they knew that at a certain moment they would get all their Votes automatically. Nobody would deny that this was having a very serious effect upon the character of discussion in Supply. The whole merit and efficiency of the Rule from the point of view of the House depended upon the minute and constant attention given to its working by the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had several times suggested that a Committee should be appointed to consider this question of allocating the Votes to be considered, upon which should sit a majority of Members of the Opposition. He was entirely opposed to that course, for the Government of the day must retain the whole responsibility for all the Supply they brought forward and for the days and the manner in which Supply was brought forward. This Rule had certain elements of success in it, if the Leader of the House gave his mind to the matter, and was careful that each session the various items of.Supply had their proper He was one of those who had chance. watched the application of Standing Order No. 25 to the business of the House with the greatest jealousy. The closure was a kind of thermometer of the incapacity of the Minister who was conducting the business of the House. He believed it only irritated the House. But another most grave objection to the Rule existed. This proposal came to them in a form which would not have been dreamt of a year or two ago. Towards the end of the session each class of Votes was to be put to the House en bloc. The different Votes in each class varied to a most remarkable extent, and the putting of them in that form reduced the thing really to a perfect farce. But, after all, the House had a great deal of human nature in it, and it was not by Rules of this kind, not by drastic arrangements with regard to business, that the business of the House could be conducted. It was to the tact and temper of him on whom was cast the onerous responsibility of arranging the order of business and conducting it through the House that they must really look for the successful conduct of business. The desire should animate all Members of the House to facilitate business. He was one of those who held that any man who willingly in any way lent himself to proceedings which unduly delayed business in He had never done this House was guilty of a high Parliamentary offence. that himself, and never would think of doing it. On the other hand, such a now about Resolution as they were in his pass, his opinion, offended dearest to against the greatest and as to the privileges of the House as full freedom of debate in examining the great financial questions which came before them. *(6.55.) SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.): I think that grave questions are raised by the Rule now under consideration with reference to the responsibility which it devolves on the Leader of the House, not personally but officially. I, for one, hold that it is impossible to devote more of the time of the House to Supply than is already devoted to it. Last year the House was in Committee of Supply thirty-six days, and I cannot conceive that anybody will reasonably maintain, unless he is pre pared to abandon legislation altogether, that the House can afford to give a greater amount of time than thirty-six days to the operation of this Rule. But the real friction that has arisen about this Rule, and I think the bulk of the dissatisfaction that has been expressed with regard to it, have arisen from having no system, no scheme, no regulation as to the allocation of the time -I am not blaming anyone in the matter for Votes to which it would have been desirable last year that an amount of time should have been given. Great questions, which deserved the fullest and amplest consideration, have been overlooked altogether by the pressure of this inexorable closure. Since the First Lord proposed this Rule to the House he has in every way endeavoured to meet the convenience of the Opposition, and of Members in every part of the House. If he has erred at all, he has been, perhaps, too facile in endeavouring to comply with the wishes of individual Members, and it would have been better for him, perhaps, to have assumed a sterner atti tude, having regard to the other Votes before the House. I hold that the view which the right hon. Gentleman pressed upon us again and again that this was a matter which he should devolve to some extent on the Opposition--which was a fair minded attitude for him to assume is absolutely impracticable. I hold that the Leader of the House is responsible for the conduct of the business of the House, and during my experience I have never known any Leader abuse that trust. Whatever Party may have been in office, and whatever may have been the irrita ting circumstances of the moment, that duty has been fairly discharged with due regard to all interests. I think the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct when he said the other evening that he did not anticipate that the principle which has hitherto guided the Leader of the House would be varied by any of his successors. But with that trust also devolves a responsibility. Now, nobody knows better than the Leader of the House what the business is that is to be brought before the House, and that is one reason why he should be trusted with the arrangement of the work the House has got to do. The House, in twenty-three days, and a Sir Henry Fowler. large number of additional days which are not included in the twenty-three, has to pass something like 150 Votes, outside of the Supplementary Estimates from the preceding year. Well, of course, the time allotted seems a very small amount to be allocated among so many Votes. I am going to make a suggestion to to the First Lord of the Treasury. I am going to ask him to undertake the duty of allocating the time to be given to the different branches of Supply himself. I believe the right hon. Gentleman will do it with perfect impartiality. Let him submit, either tor the residue of this session, or at the commencement of this session, a scheme to be in operation for next session, and that session only, as the scheme, not in the form of a Resolution or Standing Order, Committee of Supply. Now let me put on which he proposes to proceed in of course, to make the case intelligible to an imaginary case. I must give figures, the House; but I wish it to be understood that they are imaginary figures, to show how this might be dealt with. There are three great divisions-the Military, the Naval, and the Civil Services of the country. I am now speaking with reference to time of peace, and not of time of war. In time of peace the necessary provision for both the Naval and the Military Services, I think, must take the first place in the allocation of Supply. Suppose that the Army should have four days and the Navy four days allotted to them. In addition to that, on the Motion for the Speaker leaving the chair there would be two days devoted to them for a general survey both of the Army and Navy. I think it is an unfortunate thing when a portion of that time is devoted to the consideration of some not very important Amendment affecting one or other of those services, and which by chance obtains a precedence to which it is not entitled. I know that last year a great many more days were necessary, and the Government provided them from time to time, as the occasion arose. That would dispose of eight days out of the twenty. I take as coming next, as having the first claim on the Government, the case of Ireland. I think that under our system of the government of Ireland at the present day, it is our as a It is the fear duty and the First Lord of the years ago, showing that during a large Treasury himself has recognised it- portion of the century very small reduction that Ireland should have a larger has ever been made on the Estimates in share of time than proportionately Committee of Supply. I have a Return, she would be entitled to, and cer- which has been presented to the House, tainly a larger share than Scotland. with respect to the last ten years. I Suppose that four days were given to find that the only reductions carried in the Irish Estimates and three days the House were three sums of £500, each to the Scotch Estimates I am only on the buildings and offices of the Houses putting imaginary figures that would of Parliament and the celebrated charge absorb fifteen days, leaving five days for of cordite, the reduction of the War the Civil Services of the country in Office expenses by £100, which terminated addition to the general discussion on the the existence of the late Government. I Speaker leaving the Chair and on votes think their successors re voted that on account. The First Lord would, in £100 so that the Secretary for War addition, have a reserve in his bank, so to should not be punished. But the scrutspeak, of three extra days, to be allotted iny and control of Supply is to prefrom time to time according to special vent extravagance. emergencies which might develop in the inside of the offices and of the heads of course of the session. Departments as to what the defence will be in respect of any increase of expendiI am only only putting that ture, and how the Minister in charge will skeleton scheme by which the House be able to justify it, which is useful. I at the commencement of the session take it that the most frequent question put would know what would be the by the Parliamentary head to the pertime allotted to the ordinary business of manent head of a Department with the House, always subject to the emergen reference to any increase is-How am I cies which might arise. These would arise to defend that in the House of Commons again and again, according as the judg- That is the real control which the House ment of the House would decide. What of Commons has over expenditure. The the House wants to know is how the time House of Commons is always proposing is to be allocated; we want a sort of time increases of expenditure. I think Mr. table, we want to know how much time Childers made a calculation, and, taking is to be given to this service or to that 500 proposals made in Supply during the service. [An HON. MEMBER: "No." time he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am stating my opinion. I have had a very small number, certainly not twenty, some experience of the working of Supply were for reductions, and all the rest were in this House, and I am quite sure that in favour of increases of expenditure. part of the evil which has arisen, and which Therefore, I do not attach very much ha caused the breakdown of the exist-importance to our discussing expenditure ing Rules-and they have broken down by dealing with separate items, but I when £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 have to be voted without discussion-is because there has been no previous allocation of time for the purposes of Supply. I do not wish to press the First Lord of the Treasury to be bound by any cast-iron Rule. I think the Leader of the House should undertake the responsibility for this regulation of the business of the House. The House would very soon see how it would work, and would have opportunities of expressing satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the scheme. I think a scheme based on these principles would secure what is really the first duty of Supply, namely, control of the Executive. I do not consider that much money is ever saved actually in Supply. I have seen a Return, which was issued a few attach enormous importance to the control of expenditure by the House of Commons, and the control of the administrative acts of the various Departments. Our only wish is to secure that they shall be brought under the review of the House of Commons. You cannot review every Department every year, but it would be one of the duties devolved on the right hon. Gentleman to see that two years did not elapse without all the great Depart ments in their turn being subjected to the control of the House. If there has been a thoroughly exhaustive discussion of a Department one session, it is not necessary that it should be repeated the next session, having regard to the other matters which claim precedence. I have not taken much part in the discussion of |