The debate on Mr. Dillwyn's motion for a special Finance
Committee, to revise the Civil Service Estimates before they are submitted to the House, was a very remarkable and in- structive one. The sensation of the debate was the declaration by Mr. Baxter, who had himself served as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that the Parliamentary check on these Estimates is a pure farce, and that some scheme of the kind proposed. by Mr. Dillwyn is quite essential to give any reality to the Committee of Supply. " He had been forced to the conclusion that the House must adopt some new plan, in order to render the present farcical revision of the Estimates by the Representatives of the people something more than
a mere sham When he was in office, he used to be amused by seeing honourable gentlemen beating all about the bush. Sometimes they were hot, sometimes cold, sometimes very near the mark, sometimes very far from it. How often did he see them taking a, division on a vote which was right, when the item below it was absolutely indefensible." Such a state- ment as that from an ex-Secretary of the Treasury is final. Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson replied that the present Government never submits items which he thinks " absolutely indefensible." Probably not, because he knows much lest about the business of finance than Mr. Baster: Mr. Lowe, on the other hand, made a speech to prove that the Trea- s w ifmore eager for economy than the House, which
is always anxious to do jobs. But that proves, if it proves anything, not that the House should flounder on, as it does, in pure ignorance of the true financial issues, but that it should vote the Government's Estimates straight off, neither grudging what the Government asks, nor stimulating it to give more. In short, Mr. Dillwyn obtained a complete intellectual victory, though he only got 95 to vote for his motion ; while 183 voted with the Government,—majority against him, 63.
