SUPPLY.—REPORT. (Hansard, 14 March 1884)

§ MR. HEALY
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to take steps that would insure an impartial distribution of advertisements emanating from the Board of Works in Ireland, so as to include newspapers of National politics. He wished also to draw attention to the fact that the Board of Works had obtained possession of a number of monuments in Ireland, amongst others an old castle in the town of Clankilly, on which it bad been the custom for 200 years to run up a flag. As soon as they took possession of this old structure they announced that the practice to which be had referred would be put a stop to, notwithstanding that the mason of the Board of Works had so far recognized the right of the people as to fix some iron holdfasts into the wall to carry the flagstaff. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would, in order to gratify the 1648 people of the district, take such steps as would prevent the custom being interfered with.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, that the device on the flag was of a very innocent character. On one side of the flag there was a serpent, and on the other a harp.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, he had not seen the newspapers referred to by the hon. Member for Monagban (Mr. Healy); but he would make inquiries into the matter, and also into the action of the Board of Works in Ireland with reference to the custom of running up a flag on St. Patrick's Pay at the old castle mentioned. He had not had an opportunity yet of examining the Report of the Surveyor.

§ MR. DEASY
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to reconsider his decision of last night with reference to the harbour at Kinsale. He (Mr. Deasy) maintained that the quay at present projected was absolutely of no value. One of the Commissioners had stated that it would cost, at least, £100,000 to make it of any use. He asked the hon. Gentleman to suspend the operations at Kinsale until the Report of those gentlemen who were making inquiries was sent in.

§ MR. COURTNEY
was unable to say any more than that he would look into the matter.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he wished to call attention to the serious objection there was to the charge of £100 only appearing under this Vote as a contribution towards the construction of a railway for the convenience of the Government Establishment at Dartmoor, whereas there was a further sum of £2,400 included elsewhere. It was not according to the usual practice to appropriate savings on a Vote to an entirely new service. With regard to the contribution of £2,500, nothing appeared to him more liable to abuse than an arrangement of this kind between a Company and the Government. He said that, on principle, a contribution to a railway was an objectionable thing, and that it ought to be made the subject of a special Estimate. He was at a loss to understand why £100 was taken, 1649 whereas £2,500 was really required, and why the amount came forward in the Supplementary Estimates. The Vote appeared to him objectionable on all grounds; and he was unwilling to allow it to pass without drawing to it the attention of the House.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, a brief history of the Vote might be interesting to the House. The railway in question was one that would greatly facilitate the supplies to Dartmoor Prison; and when it was projected an application was made to allow some of the convicts at the prison to assist in its construction. The calculations which were submitted to the Treasury from the Home Office showed that the saving effected by the railway would be very much greater than the full estimated cost of the labour of supplying the prison. Subsequently, it was found inconvenient to employ convict labour; and it was decided that, instead of keeping so many convicts at work upon the railway, there should be a grant of a certain sum of money rather less than the estimated cost of convict labour, the money to be paid when the railway was completed, and it was upon that ground that the amount came forward in the Supplementary Estimates. If it had been known when the Estimates were being prepared that the railway would be completed in the year, it would have been their duty to put this amount in the Estimates; but the Government had no such knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Government were submitting a Vote of £100, when, in fact, they were asking the House to sanction a Vote for £2,500. That objection would lie, no doubt, if on the face of the Vote the Government had not given full information to the House that the Vote itself involved the sanction of an expenditure of £2,500. There was not the least attempt to withdraw from the House full knowledge of the expenditure to which it would be committed by voting this sum of £100. Either the Government must have presented a Vote to the House giving an exaggerated estimate of the expenditure under this particular head, or they must have presented a Vote which represented the true increase of expenditure. They had taken the utmost pains to prevent any misconception by giving the fullest particulars to the House; and had they adopted the 1650 course of proposing an Estimate of £2,500, the result would have been that under the general head the expenditure for the year would have been £413,600, whereas, as a matter of fact, it was only £411,200. In that way they would have presented to the House a totally unreal Estimate, instead of an accurate account of the expenditure incurred. It was quite true that the Government only asked for a limited sum, and that it involved the sanction of the House to a much larger sum. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, deserved the thanks of the House for calling attention to this matter. It was within the well-understood practice of the Treasury, if there were a surplus under one sub-head of the Vote, to transfer it to another subhead of the same Vote; and it was also in the power of the Treasury to set up a new sub-head if it was covered by the Resolution which sanctioned the whole of the Vote.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he begged to thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation; but he could not agree with his view that the setting up of a new sub-head on a Supplementary Estimate was within the well-known practice of the Treasury. To him it appeared something quite new, and he regarded the Supplementary Vote as illusory, because it would appear that a small sum only was asked for, whereas a much larger expenditure was sanctioned by the passing of the Vote.

§ MR. TOMLINSON
said, this was a very peculiar case. Supposing it had not been necessary to take this £100, they would never have heard anything about the £2,500. They had had a very elaborate explanation, but it did not alter the peculiar aspect of the case.

§ MR. SEXTON
begged to move that the Report of this Vote be postponed until to-morrow. It had been arranged that on this Vote he should call attention to the case of Mr. Eyre Preston, and that the Chief Secretary should deliver the reply of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was not in his place; and though he (Mr. Sexton) did not blame him, it was obvious that under 1651 such circumstances the discussion could not be taken.