I beg to move, after the word "Fund," to insert the words "and borrowing."

On a point of Order. Does this Amendment precede mine?

The Amendment precedes the one the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) has handed in.

The fact that the Act confers large borrowing powers on the Government does not appear from the title. Anybody reading the title without taking the trouble to read the Clauses would not realise that the Bill gives borrowing powers to the extent of over £41,000,000 to the Government. I think the title with my Amendment better explains the purposes of the Bill.

I must congratulate the hon. Member on having discovered what I believe no one has hitherto discovered, namely, a relevant Amendment and one which is in order to the third or descriptive Clause of the Consolidated Fund Bill. That fact reflects the greatest credit on the Parliamentary ingenuity of the hon. Member. I say that quite unaffectedly as an old hand in these matters, and I congratulate him that he should have hit upon this happy discovery. But to look at it for a moment seriously, the hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will agree with me that it is an unnecessary Amendment. Every Consolidated Fund Bill ever passed, certainly within my memory, has contained borrowing powers. It contains a borrowing Clause which is absolutely essential if the Grant which is made in the first Clause and the power to issue Treasury Bills is not to be a nugatory power. The Treasury must have power to anticipate the Grant by issuing Treasury Bills for a short period. That is not a new feature in this Bill, but a common feature of all Consolidated Fund Bills, for which this title has always been held to be sufficient and appropriate. The hon. Gentleman's only point was the magnitude of the amount. If that is really the objection, it is not an objection to the borrowing powers; it is an objection to the first Clause and to the Grant on so large a scale. Your borrowing powers must be commensurate with your issuing powers. If you raise an objection to the magnitude of the amount, and not in any way to the borrowing power, it is really illogical, because the borrowing Clause only follows the issuing Clause and one is the necessary consequence and concomitant of the other. Both on the ground of precedent and of the special circumstances of the case, I suggest to the hon. Member that he should not proceed further with the Amendment.

I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating my hon. Friend on the ingenuity which he has shown, not for the first time, in this House. The right hon. Gentleman has based his objection upon the fact that it is contrary to all precedent, and that hitherto the title of all Consolidated Fund Bills has been the same. I should like to say that what he has said is quite correct. I am a stickler for precedent; the right hon. Gentleman is not, for there is hardly any precedent he has not broken in the last seven years, from the Constitution down to the guillotine.

All the more reason why I should not break another.

There is joy over one sinner that repenteth. The right hon. Gentleman has almost moved me to sit down and say nothing more, for he stands in a white sheet of repentance in face of the Committee, and I hope of the country, but this is more serious than the right hon. Gentleman has said. The precedent he has cited does not clearly indicate to the ordinary observer what is in the Bill. The title of the Bill under the old precedent does not compare with the Bill as it is. I remember Sir Charles Dilke once saying in this House, when a question of precedent was raised as an argument against not accepting an Amendment, that he did not know there had been so many bad precedents. That argument might have been advanced by my hon. Friend. What the Amendment proposes to do is to indicate clearly what is the effect of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Unless the words are put in, people might think that the effect of the Consolidated Fund Bill is to apply the sum authorised out of the Consolidated Fund for the 31st March. It is not only that, it authorises borrowing in order to get money into the Consolidated Fund. The ordinary interpretation of the Bill would be that the money was in the Consolidated Fund as the produce of taxes, but it really gives a special power providing that the money should be obtained by borrowing. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that if in matters of finance we find bad precedents, it is best to do away with them. It will be better for all who are to succeed us in this House that they should see that on this day the House of Commons decided to put in words clearly indicating what is in the Bill. For these reasons I support the Amendment.

After your observations, Sir, a little earlier in the afternoon as to the exceptional course which this Debate has taken, I confess to a certain amount of diffidence in addressing the Committee with regard to the Amendment so ably brought forward by my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend need not be alarmed, for on 28th March, 1905, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had eleven Divisions on this stage of the Bill. We have not done as much as that.

I am glad to learn from my hon. Friend that hon. Members who now sit on the other side of the House took a keener interest in these financial questions than they do now, when their Friends are sitting on the Treasury Bench. As I was observing when I was interrupted, I am not going to detain the Committee because I know that the House and the country generally are awaiting eagerly the statement which the First Lord of the Admiralty is to make at a considerably later hour this evening. I understand that the importance which might have attached to that speech has been somewhat minimised by the intelligent anticipations which we believe are already in the hands of the proper authorities. The congratulations which the Prime Minister addressed to the Mover of the Amendment were very well deserved. The speech of the Prime Minister on this Amendment was even more unsatisfactory than the speech he made earlier in the afternoon in reply to an Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). He seemed in the first part of his speech to throw some doubt upon the seriousness with which my hon. Friend advanced this Amendment. It was more in the tone of what he said than the actual words he used. Personally, I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. Friend brought forward this Amendment in order to improve the Bill. I do not attach very great value to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill has a similar title to that which has always been given to these Bills in order that ancient forms and precedents might be followed. As has been pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman has really no just cause for following a precedent of this kind, for there is no one in the Committee who has more consistently ignored precedents or any of the forms of our institutions. Therefore I am somewhat surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman, on the second occasion this afternoon, saying that ancient forms and customs must always be followed. The object of the Amendment was to give that clearness and distinctness to the title of the Bill which we have a right to demand in every Bill framed by the Government. Any person casually reading the Bill would see that the title was to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending 31st March, 1914, and he might suppose that there were no borrowing powers conferred upon the Government in the Bill itself; but, of course, when we come to examine it more closely we find that this £41,027,000, which is to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, is dealt with in the first Clause, whereas the second Clause gives power to the Treasury to borrow.

The hon. Member cannot now deal with Clauses 1 and 2. We are now on Clause 3.

My only object was to show that the title as it stands does not adequately describe these two Clauses, and that it would be clearer if the Amendment was adopted. We have often urged that proper attention is not given to these financial matters. I think we are also entitled to urge that these Finance Bills, dealing with these enormous sums, which eventually come out of the pockets of the unfortunate taxpayer, should be worded in such a manner that an ordinarily intelligent elector when he examines the Acts of Parliament and glances through the titles of the measures which a beneficent Government has passed, should be able by the mere examination of the titles to see what the object is.

The hon. Member, I am afraid, is putting before the Committee the identical argument which was put before it by the hon. Member (Mr. Hope), and if he refers to Standing Order 19 he will see that he is not entitled to repeat the arguments of those who preceded him.

The object of everyone is to bring this Debate to a conclusion when the subject has been adequately discussed, though I see no reason why these important questions should be hurried through and passed without proper examination. I am very sorry if, in my anxiety lest any of these points should not be adequately dealt with, I have trespassed on the grounds which has been so well covered by my hon. Friend, who has preceded me. I will therefore address myself to other points in connection with the matter. It would be not only for the general convenience of the electorate, who take a far greater interest in these matters than hon. Members opposite appear to imagine, and I think the way in which the Closure has been applied to these financial discussions—

The hon. Member must not criticise the action of the Chair in accepting the Motion or the decision of the House.

I certainly had not the slightest intention of criticising the action of the Chair. What I desired to criticise was the action of the Minister in bringing to a conclusion a very proper debate.

That is the same thing. It is the action of the House. The Government can only move it.

I do not wish to deal with the point any further. I accept not only your ruling, but the ruling of the House, though I think it is regrettable that the decision of the House should have been taken on this particular occasion. I think the Amendment requires very careful consideration. Until far more weighty arguments are brought forward against the Amendment than those which were advanced by the Prime Minister, I shall certainly feel it my duty to follow my hon. Friend into the Lobby.

When I first heard this Amendment I felt some doubt whether I should not be reluctantly compelled to support the Government. Of course I am a loyal party man, and I endeavoured to find grounds which would enable me to vote for the Amendment. We are all anxious to hear the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and it will be very unfortunate indeed if such an important announcement as we are likely to hear should be known to the Reichstag before it is known to the House of Commons. For that reason I am sure the House feel that the right hon. Gentleman has taken a proper course if, as we understand, he has taken steps to prevent publicity being given to it prematurely. I did not think it was a very serious matter at first whether we had the words "and borrowing" or not, but I have been entirely converted by the speeches I have heard. The Prime Minister, in asking the House to reject this Amendment, said it had been proposed upon the ground that the borrowing powers were excessive, and he brought forward in reply to that the argument that that was an objection, not to Clause 3, but to the first Clause, and that the borrowing powers in the Bill must necessarily correspond with the issue. That sounds perfectly reasonable, but we unsuccessfully objected to the amount of money which the Government are taking in this Bill, and as we cannot limit that amount, surely it is reasonable to bring the title of the Bill into conformity with the action of the Government in taking an excessive sum, and surely it is reasonable that when a much larger sum than necessary is being taken due notice should be taken of that. If the Government really think there is no serious objection to these words being added it would be perfectly simple for them to say that, notwithstanding any precedent there may be, they are willing to accept it. Surely the strenuous manner in which the Government are resisting the Amendment is sufficient proof that they do at all events regard it quite as seriously as we do, though they appear to take an opposite view as regards its propriety. I agree with the Prime Minister that precedent is in favour of the Clause standing as it is at present. I have taken steps to find out how far that precedent goes back, and I believe it goes back as far as William Pitt. But the whole method of national finance, and the control of this House, was quite different in those days. If you go back some generations you come to a system of finance which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably call a feudal method.

That is a great deal too wide for a Clause only containing the title of the Bill.

I was only attempting to deal with the argument of the Prime Minister that the form of this Clause is supported by long precedent, and while admitting that that is so I think the reply to it is that the whole system of Government in these days rests upon a very much more democratic basis than in the time when these precedents were made, and it is much more important that in these days we should keep a correct correspondence between what these Finance Acts are doing and the titles of those Acts. It is very important that the people who ought to have control of the finance of the country and who have very much less than they used to have through the House of Commons should have every facility given them in looking through the Statute Book and finding out with as little trouble and research as possible exactly what it is that is done by the Government when they are asking for money from the taxpayers. For that reason, although I do not think it really is a matter of supreme importance I think it is of sufficient importance to justify us in bringing it before the House, and I also think the Prime Minister might go further and satisfy us in this respect, and save the time of the House, and not put us to the trouble of a Division, by accepting the Amendment.

I believe it is a mark of a cold and suspicious nature to be unmoved by flattery. I was so much

The Amendment handed in by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), to leave out "(No. 1)" is not one I can accept. It seems to me to be trifling with the Committee to propose to leave out "No. 1," because it would be of no effect. It will make no difference whether these words are in or not.

I also handed in this Amendment, and I submit that it is relevant, because, by having "No. 1" in the Bill there is an implication that there is going to be a No. 2 Bill. No one can say that there will be a No. 2 Bill, and if we say in this case No. 1, people in future will be misled, because there may not be a No. 2 Bill at all. I submit that, in order to get rid of this difficulty, the Amendment is really a serious one.

If it is in accordance with precedent to call this Bill No. 1, I would point out that it is not in accordance with what takes place in respect of other Bills passed through the House. Take the case

I am afraid the hon. Member has not convinced me.

In reference to a proposed new Clause which has been handed in by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, I am not quite sure if I understand its purport, and perhaps he will allow me to say what I think it is. I understand that it is to prevent the Public Accounts and Charges Act applying in respect of the Supply which is contained in this Bill. That is to say, that none of the money provided by this Bill will be applicable, for instance, to the Navy Votes, which presumably will be carried on Friday and in the House on Monday?

Yes.

I wish to guard myself, not having had time to refer to the precedents in this matter; but, having a doubt in my mind, I will allow the hon. Baronet to propose this Clause.

I beg to propose that the following New Clause be read a second time:—

"Limitation of Application of Act.

No sums issued under this Act shall be applied towards making good any Supply granted to His Majesty after the passing of this Act."

That is not the effect of the Amendment.

If that is the case I would—

That is not the effect of my Amendment. I say it might be held that that is the effect, but that is not so. I was anticipating the argument which would be brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman.

Never in this world.

I am glad to hear that. I will now proceed to the only other argument which can be brought forward against the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman—that is, that if it is carried ft will necessitate another Consolidated Fund Bill in a very short time. It has already been said in this House to-day that the Committee ought to keep control of the finance of the country in its own hands. I do not want to go into the reasons which have actuated this procedure, but if for any reason it has been necessary to push matters forward in the hurried way in which they have been pushed forward, then it is the duty of the Government of the day to see that the rules of procedure which have governed the finances of the country for centuries shall be observed and to bring in another Consolidated Fund Bill. In those circumstances, I beg to move the Clause.

I had the pleasure of congratulating the hon. Gentleman (Mr. James Hope), whom I do not see any longer in his place, on the skill which characterised the last Amendment. But I cannot congratulate the hon. Baronet on the Clause which he now proposes—indeed, it is with sorrow that I find him making himself responsible for such a Clause as this. What is the effect of this Clause, apart from the hypothetically expected conjectures to which he referred which might be advanced by some person — I thought it was himself — and which would be the construction of some not very skilful person? The effect of this Clause is simply this, that not a penny of this £41,000,000 can be expended upon the Navy. Although the House to-night, to-morrow, and on Monday will sanction the granting of certain Votes for payment of the Navy, those Votes cannot be got out of the Exchequer until we have gone through all the formalities of First Reading, Resolution in Ways and Means, Report of Resolution, Second Reading, Committee, and Third Reading of another Consolidated Fund Bill. That is what the hon. Baronet proposes. His argument is that he is keeping control by the House of Commons over the finance of the country. He is doing nothing of the kind. Not a penny of this money which is authorised by the Bill now before the House can be expended upon the Navy until the House has voted it in Committee in the first place, and sanctioned the expenditure, and until the Resolution is voted in Committee and reported to the House and approved upon Report. Therefore the House retains the most absolute control as to whether or not, and to what extent, any of the money, the issue of which is authorised by this Bill, shall be expended. No one knows better than the hon. Baronet that it would be a farce going again through the whole of these proceedings for several days on a new Consolidated Fund Bill, and that it would leave the Navy for a week, at any rate, without any lawful means of having one single penny spent upon it. That is the utmost expedition with which the Bill could be got through, and for a week it would be impossible to legally spend one halfpenny on the service of the Navy. That is the effect of the Amendmen. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That is the effect, and you cannot get out of it. The legality of this practice was very much called in question in 1905. The Government of that day, for reasons which were then stated, and which at any rate satisfied the public, contended that it was legal. But that is not the question. We are following strictly the precedents, and the hon. Baronet is now trying, by an affirmative provision in the Bill, to make it illegal to spend the money.

I am trying to make it illegal to spend the money on the Navy without you pass another Consolidated Fund Bill.

The hon. Baronet is trying to make it illegal to spend one penny of the money granted under this Bill on the Navy. We are following now the practice which has been followed since 1891, and it has not been attended by any inconvenience or abuse. This proposal would deprive an important service of the nation for an appreciable time of the necessary expenditure, and would do this for the first time by a private Amendment introduced into the Consolidated Fund Bill.

The only effect would be to necessitate another Consolidated Fund Bill, which might take a week, though I do not know that it would. But that is not our fault; it is the fault of the right hon. Gentleman in trying to bring forward too many Bills in one Session, and prolonging the Session to such an extent that he could not call the House together at the proper time.

That, again, is only the point which was taken in 1905 in regard to the Army; in this case it is the Navy. But no proposal was made at that time to introduce a Clause of this kind. Doubts were expressed as to the legality of the proceeding and as to whether we could, in these circumstances, lawfully issue on the part of the Crown money for such a purpose. No attempt was made to introduce any such Clause as this, and if there was, I am quite prepared to say that it was a mistake, and a mistake which ought not to be repeated. Let me point out that the hon. Baronet, on account of what he thinks our misdealing, is punishing the Navy by necessitating another Consolidated Fund Bill; in other words, this is the first time it is proposed to introduce a Clause of this kind into the Bill. We are following the normal operation of what has been the practice since 1891, and it is not possible for us to accept the Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman, I think, has made a very convincing statement of the case, but he must have overlooked a similar proposal made on a former occasion by the First Lord of the Admiralty. On that occasion it is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to bring it to a discussion in this House for the simple reason that the Chairman held it was not in order, and he was not allowed to move it.

Perhaps I may say that I have some faint recollection of that, but I have not been able to find the record of it, and therefore I guarded myself on this occasion by saying that this was not to be taken as a precedent.

The Committee will understand that his proposal was in a different form, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the effect of his proposal was the same, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman, who afterwards became responsible for the Navy, was himself guilty of all these crimes of which the right hon. Gentleman now speaks. The right hon. Gentleman now thinks it is quite a sufficient case when he points out that there is not time to get a second Consolidated Bill through. That is the attitude now. But what was his attitude in 1905? He turned to the Government of that day saying, "you make the excuse that the service will be starved, but whose fault is it? It is yours," and the right hon. Gentleman was then supported by the then Opposition in the very course which he deprecates to-day.

That is not my recollection, nor is it that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

The right hon. Gentleman can disprove, if he can, that it is so, but I think I am right in what I am saying. There seems to be a fate in these things, and ill-doing, which is no very grave fault in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman when sanctioned by his own side, is apt to have its revenge. What happened previously was this: A right hon. Gentleman was inconvenienced, as the First Lord of the Admiralty is to-day, by what happened.

No.

Well, the House was inconvenienced by not having had the advantage of hearing the right hon. Gentleman's statement.

I have had the privilege of listening to a very interesting and amusing Debate.

The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, found it rather disquieting to listen to these discussions when very much more important matters were in his mind. The point I wish to remind him of is that he was the ringleader in 1905 of the very great obstruction which took place on that occasion. I do not deny that there has been obstruction on this occasion, but what has been the cause of it? It was not only begun by the other side, but a very undesirable precedent was set which was continued by the right hon. Gentleman a member of the Privy Council, who occupies an important position on that Bench. I say that the right hon. Gentleman on the occasion in 1905 was the ringleader, and eleven Divisions were taken on the same stage on which these discussions have taken place to-day.