I beg to call your attention to the fact that I rose.

I did not hear the hon. Member's voice.

I did rise, but I was unable, owing to the shouts coming from the other side, to make my voice heard. I certainly rose.

If the hon. Member had spoken I should have noticed him. I was not anticipating a Division.

I did speak, Sir.

The hon. Member's voice did not reach me. I am afraid that, having collected the voices, I cannot go back on that.

On a point of Order. I beg to assure you, Sir, that I did see my hon. Friend rise.

Will you allow me to say, Sir, that I was rising myself. [Interruption.] We shall regard it as most unfair unless we are allowed to speak.

I think the hon. Member should have taken more active steps if he wished to make any observations. Having twice collected the voices, it is not in my power to go back.

I should like to appeal to you, Sir, to know what I am to do. I rose in order to catch your eye; then as you were proceeding to put the Question to the Committee, I said, "Mr. Whitley."

It has been pointed out to me that although I had called for the Ayes and the Noes, I had not declared which of the two had it. Therefore, I have not completely put the Question, and the hon. Member is entitled to address me on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

On a point of Order. May I ask you whether it is not the invariable practice that when the voices are collected, that is to say, when both the Ayes and the Noes have responded to your request, no further Debate can take place; whether that has not been the invariable custom of the House for the last 200 years; and whether, as a matter of fact, you having said in response to me when I challenged your statement that the Ayes had it, I did not again repeat "The Noes have it."

May I say that although you, Sir, had to some extent collected the voices, and had indeed asked for the Ayes or Noes, there was scarcely anyone in the Committee who said "Aye," and you turned to the other side, and while you were turning, my hon. Friend rose to my certain knowledge, and, before you had collected the "Noes," he certainly called your name. I therefore submit in that case he was in time, seeing that although you had collected the "Ayes" you certainly had not collected the "Noes" before he rose.

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The question you put was, "I think the Ayes have it," and I said, "The Noes have it." You then said, "I think the Ayes have it," and I repeated, "The Noes have it." It was not until after that that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), who had not risen before, rose.

The challenge was so unexpected that I have thought it my duty to consult my advisers at my side. Their opinion was that I had not completed putting the question.

On a point of Order. I venture to point out that the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has misstated—

The hon. Member cannot address me on that point of Order. I have given my decision on that question and I have called on Mr. Booth.

I must ask the indulgence of the House, and particularly of great financial critics like the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who is not so closely associated with me to-day as he sometimes is, if I raise a point which has troubled me for a very long time. I spent the first two years in this House listening to financial business and carefully following it. There are two matters in this Clause on which I should like some enlightenment. The Clause reads:—

I must point out that the date has already been fixed in Committee of Supply, and it will not be competent to move an Amendment to alter the date.

I was not intending to move an Amendment. What the Clause does is to set the seal of the House upon these Votes in Supply by appropriating them, and I want to raise a point on that.

I submit, as a point of Order, that as this is not an Appropriation Bill the hon. Member is not entitled to discuss it as if it were?

That is quite true. It is not an Appropriation Bill. It is simply authorising the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums already voted in Committee of Supply.

Do I understand you, Sir, to rule that my hon. Friend is entirely precluded from discussing the date in question? Is it not competent for him to discuss 1st April as distinct from 31st March?

No. If it cannot be followed up by an Amendment it is clearly not open to debate. It is a point that has been settled in Supply.

Will it be possible for the hon. Member to argue that the amount £41,000,000 is too high?

No, it has often been ruled that it is impossible to propose a variation or reduction of the amount on the Consolidated Fund Bill. It must correspond with the amount voted in Committee of Supply and Ways and Means and approved by the House.

May I submit that, following precedent, it would be competent for the hon. Member to make an appeal to the Government to endeavour to reduce this amount when they next bring a Consolidated Fund Bill forward?

No. I think that would be asking the House to go back on previous decisions. I think it has often been ruled that that cannot be done.

Would it not be in order to argue that the Government in taking this £41,000,000 have taken Supply for too long or too short a period as the case may be? This is about four or five months' Supply, and a year or two ago the Government took six months' Supply. In the present Bill they have reverted to an old practice, of taking four or five months' Supply. Is it not in order for any Member of the House to protest against the action of the Government in taking four months instead of six months' Supply?

No, that point ought to have been raised on the Vote in Committee. It certainly cannot be raised at this stage.

There are certain considerations which will affect my vote on this Clause and I submit that I am entitled to put the considerations which will affect my vote without justifying a particular Amendment, which you might say would be out of order. I am anxious to thoroughly understand, when I vote, what I am doing. While hon. Members come here to vote blind those of us who do not hesitate to differ from our own friends when we think it necessary are entitled to thoroughly analyse the Clause so that we may give a conscientious vote. I gather there are many hon. Members opposite, loyal, constitutional Members, who wish to vote Supplies to the Crown who are in the same difficulty. They are not able to vote for the Clause without further explanation. There are several of these points which to my mind make the matter to some extent obscure. One of these points is the date, and while I am not suggesting any other date, we are entitled to ask why this date continually recurs.

It has been ruled frequently that that point cannot be raised at this stage of the Bill. The date must correspond with the date in Committee.

Is it not possible to ask for a little information on constitutional practice? Are we not entitled to know why the Consolidated Fund Bill is in this particular form?

I am much obliged to you, Sir, for giving an explanation for the date which I was seeking. Having got it from you, I think it comes with more power than even I should take it from my own leader, and I accept it without question. But I want to ask, as a new Member seeking information, exactly the meaning of this phrase "issued out of the Consolidated Fund." They are technical words, and no doubt their meaning to the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is clear. But the House is entitled to have occasionally put before it, after a long lapse of years, some definite statement from our Front Bench as to how they will carry out this Clause.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his consent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.

I cannot find it on the records of the House. I have been looking for several years back over these debates. I hope the older Members will be patient while the younger Members have an explanation from the Government as to the procedure which will be taken under this authorisation in Clause 1, namely, that the Treasury may "issue out of the Consolidated Fund." I will call attention to the words which follow:—

"The Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

It is really not permissible. This Clause embodies simply the formal method of carrying out the decisions of the House in Committee of Supply and Ways and Means. The question the hon. Member is raising is really not in order.

Under those circumstances— [HON. MEMBERS: "Your majority is safe."] One would think there was a Tariff Reformer returned for Kendal.

rose.

The hon. Member (Mr. King) should remember to keep seated when the Chairman is on his feet. The hon. Member (Mr. Booth) has not been able to discover anything properly relevant to the discussion of the Clause. I think I have heard the hon. Member patiently.

Is it the ruling of the Chair that because an Amendment to this Clause is impossible it is impossible to discuss questions which might have been the subject matter of an Amendment?

The hon. Member has quite correctly apprehended the Rule.

I have been asked what would be the effect if the Amendment proposed were carried.

On a point of Order. Having regard to the fact that you have said the questions put by the hon. Member were irrelevant, is it in order to answer irrelevant questions?

Certainly, it is not. I should stop the right hon. Gentleman if that was what he was proposing.

We are asked to decide whether this Clause should be rejected or not, and I am sure I shall only be fulfilling my duty in the position I occupy—[Interruption]—if I state what the consequences of its rejection would be, for it appears that every Member of the House is not quite clear what the consequences would be if the Clause was excised from the Bill. This is the operative Clause in the Bill, and if it were excised the whole Bill goes, and no payment could be made out of the Consolidated Fund for services of which the House has already approved in a series of discussions in Committee. [The right hon. Gentleman here read the words of the Clause.] Supposing the Amendment was carried, there would be no money to carry on the Supply of the Army and the Supply of the Navy—[Interruption]—surely an amazing proposition for hon. Gentlemen opposite to make—[Interruption]—without a word of discussion, and without any justification of their own action, either before the House or the country, to suggest that this House should reject the Clause. Not only so, but hon. Gentlemen cannot even advance any justification of their action by showing that the items which are here gathered together, and out of which money is to be paid by the Consolidated Fund, have not been approved by the House. The Consolidated Fund Bill, as the hon. Gentleman opposite knows, is the only way in which money can be released which has been voted in Committee and in Ways and Means. It is not, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth) seemed to think, an Appropriation Bill, and that accounts for some of the misapprehension. The money is appropriated at the end of the Session, in August, and consequently this money can be used as general money liberated either for the Navy or the Army or any of the Civil Services.

On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman has imputed to hon. Members on this side of the House an objection to the Clause in the Bill. You have already ruled that you have not collected the voices.

The right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, was giving to the Committee reasons why the Committee should not negative this Clause.

The right hon. Gentleman, I submit, is going further than that, because he is imputing to hon. Members on this side of the House action of which they are not guilty.

That is not a matter that can be argued. The right hon. Gentleman is surely entitled to show what the effect will be of rejecting the Clause in the Bill.

The interruption of the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division puts a new phase on the controversy. I agree that if the hon. Gentleman assures us that neither he nor his Friends have any desire after consideration—[Interruption]—after the consequences which I considered it my duty to point out to the House, and which I can realise he did not realise, would ensue—if on reflection he realises that there are some things too discreditable even for a discredited Opposition to propose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw," and Interruption.]

Will hon. Members be good enough to observe silence and not interrupt? The right hon. Gentleman has made a strong statement, but there was nothing, in my opinion, that was un-parliamentary in it, or I would have asked him to withdraw it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House in controversy make strong statements, and there is, of course, an opportunity to reply. I do not think that there is any reason for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman in the way hon. Members have done. It is relevant to point out what would be the consequences of rejecting the Clause in the Bill, and that, I think, can be done by argument, and needs no other means.

Not to call us discredited.

rose amid cries of "Withdraw."

also rose.

Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?

Yes, Sir. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in referring to this side of the House as a discredited Opposition?

On the point of Order, Mr. Chairman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

There is nothing to withdraw. The term used by the right hon. Gentleman is one which, I think, I have frequently heard applied from that side of the House to the Government—not merely by the present Opposition, but by other Oppositions to the Government of the day. The Chair naturally does not desire that such strong phrases should be used, but still it is not right on my part to say that it is unparliamentary.

I rather gather, Mr. Whitley, that you did not hear the expression which was used by the right hon. Gentleman. Is it in order to say "too disgraceful?"

rose and was received with cries of "Withdraw."

There appears to be some doubt as to what the phrase used was. [HON. MEMBERS: "We all heard it."]

May I explain what I said? [HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Withdraw."]

There appears to be some doubt—[HON. MEMBERS: "No doubt."]—as to what the phrase was that was used. [HON. MEMBERS: "None at all," and "There is no doubt."] The right hon. Gentleman is surely entitled to be heard.

rose, and was again received with cries of "Withdraw."

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the word "disgraceful" was used. The word I heard at the Table was "discreditable." [HON. MEMBERS: "NO," "Both," and "Order."] The expression which was used is perfectly orderly. If the word "disgraceful" was used, in my opinion that is going beyond Parliamentary order. I should wish the right hon. Gentleman to explain the use of that word—the sense in which he used it. I did not myself understand that it was used.

If I used the word "disgraceful"—[HON. MEMBERS: "With-

then put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."