§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."'—(Mr. Jackson.)
§ MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)Before the Bill is read a second time, I just wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that it is passing what practically amounts to the imposition of a rate of 1¼d. in the pound upon the whole Metropolis, and that it is doing that upon the recom- 862 mendation solely of a body which is not directly representative, and whose actions have recently been brought into great discredit. I do not oppose the Bill now; but I make an appeal to the House on behalf of the ratepayers of the Metropolis that, in future, Bills of this kind may be brought before the House at some time when there is an opportunity of criticizing them, and also the action of the Metropolitan Board of Works itself, until a really representative authority is established.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)I cannot help expressing my astonishment that a Gentleman so reasonable as the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) usually is, should calmly propose that we should pass the second reading of a Bill dealing with a vast, a gigantic expenditure of money such as is contemplated in this Bill after 2 o'clock in the morning, and that without one syllable of explanation. I am still more surprised at such a course of action at the present time, when, as my hon. Friend (Mr. James Stuart) has said this expenditure of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 sterling is most of it recommended by a public Body now under suspicion of most serious offences, at which I am sure there is no man in the House whose financial conscience and morality would more revolt than the Secretary of the Treasury; but he, quite unwittingly and innocently is actually, by letting this Bill go forward at this hour without a word of explanation, assisting at the screening of that public Body from the inquiry that is now demanded into its proceedings. I do not know whether any Metropolitan Member may consider it his duty to make a Motion which I do not now make, for I trust the reasonableness of the Secretary to the Treasury will relieve me from the necessity; but perhaps, some hon. Member whose constituents are more particularly interested may find it his duty to move the adjournment, in order to secure the discussion of a Bill of this enormous importance at a proper time. I may point out to the Srcretary to the Treasury, whose business it, to a great extent, is to arrrange the course of our proceedings, that as the Government have now in their possession the whole of the time of the House—I more time I think than they will presently be able to occupy—that there 863 is no necessity to proceed with this measure after 2 o'clock in the morning. A Bill of this enormous importance may well demand some explanation, and discussion at a reasonable hour, say, at a Wednesday's sitting.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks I have in any sense sought to evade comment or explanation in regard to this Bill; but I have, I believe, followed what has been the general annual practice in the House. I believe it is thoroughly understood that the responsibility of the Treasury for the Bill consists rather in the care and precautions taken prior to the introduction of the Bill, to see that the whole of the statements therein are true, and that they give to the House the fullest information as to the financial condition of the Board and its proposals. It will be found, if reference is made to the table attached to the Bill, that the fullest information is given in regard to the figures and the financial position of the Board, The hon. Member who spoke first (Mr. James Stuart) spoke of the Board being under some sort of stigma or suspicion. Now, I think he will recognize that really on this question the Treasury have no responsibility; but let me point out that the question has not escaped the attention of the Treasury. By communications with the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board I have satisfied myself that the question to which the hon. Member refers is being investigated by a Committee of the Board of Works, which I believe will deal with it thoroughly and impartially. The House will see, therefore, that, so far as the Treasury is concerned, I have endeavoured to discharge the duty imposed upon me, and I can say that all the accounts in this Bill have been most carefully gone into by the Treasury, and I believe there is nothing in this Bill which for a single moment the House need hesitate to accept. I hope that although I did not make any remarks on proposing the second reading, the House will recognize that so far as the Treasury is concerned the Treasury has discharged its duty. With regard to the other question, upon which I feel an interest in common with every Member of the House, I feel as we all must feel, that it is the bounden duty of the 864 Board to thoroughly and impartially investigate the questions that have been raised, and to give the fullest, clearest, and most definite answer to the charges made. These are at present under investigation, and I think the House would do well not to interfere with the duty of that Committee. This Bill is a valuable Bill, dealing with certain powers conferred on the Board by various Acts of Parliament. Into the various points the Treasury have carefully examined, and control has been exercised and every precaution used to present them in a form giving the fullest information, and this information, so far as the Treasury is concerned, is vouched for to the fullest extent.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)I do not doubt for a moment that the Treasury have exercised every precaution in their power, and so far as the Treasury are concerned I am quite certain that in the hands of the hon. Gentleman we are perfectly safe; but this House has also a responsibility and a duty to perform in a matter of this kind, a duty I am bound to say we should not discharge in a satisfactory manner were we to allow this Bill to pass without any scrutiny or examination. I make those remarks bearing in mind the fact that so far as my recollection extends this Bill was only distributed on Saturday or this morning; it is a longish Bill, containing many complicated figures, and I do not know what may be the case with other Members, but I certainly have not had time to look into it with the care the Bill ought to have before we come to a decision upon it. As to the other matter, may I call attention to the fact that it has been stated in the Press by a Member of the Board that he is not all satisfied with the inquiry by a Committee of the Board, which is simply a private inquiry without the light of public opinion, which would make it of any value. In fact, so unsatisfactory did that Gentleman consider it, that although he could supply new facts in connection with the matter, he did not think it worth while to bring them forward without a more full and impartial inquiry.
§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)I think even some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who represent Metropolitan constituencies, must have heard the state- 865 ment of the Secretary to the Treasury with considerable surprise. Even if they are now prepared to acquiesce, probably, when these proceedings become known to their constituents, some of them will be less disposed to silence than they are now. What is the general practice? This Bill is promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works; it involves an enormous expenditure of public money, and it is presented without a word of explanation to the House and the people. If that is the practice it is a bad practice, and ought to cease, and we shall exert ourselves to secure that it shall cease. The Board has a Representative here in the person of a distinguished Baronet of considerable literary ability, and to him the House might reasonably look for some explanation. This is described as an annual Bill. Yes; but in former years the Board was not under that suspicion that recent events have excited in the public mind. What did the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) say? Surely he is much too shrewd, too upright an administrator to believe that the apology he made will pass current, when he says, forsooth, that a suspicion of malfeasance of public funds, a misuse of money entrusted to a Body—a kind of Corporation—is being investigated by a Committee sitting to inquire into its own misdeeds. I refuse to accept that as a reasonable explanation. It is just because London is without a system of local government that we are placed under an obligation to protect the ratepayers of London from having a march stolen upon them in this way. The Secretary to the Treasury spoke of the information in the table. Well, the table deals with vast sums of money extending over operations of the past 30 years. He, with his faculty of turning figures into poetry, might have said a few words to enable us to understand this ponderous Return. It is not merely this information we want. The remarks of the hon. Gentleman do not apply to the proposed legislation in the Bill. Look down the clauses, and you find the Board expend money under five sets of Acts. There is a proposal to lend money to the Vestry of St. Pancras. What do we know of that? What security is there for the loan? [Laughter.] Will the Home Secretary, who laughs, get up and say that the Vestry of St. Pancras will give good security? Is he suffi- 866 ciently acquainted with local finance to give that pledge? There are powers to lend to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police, powers to lend to Burial and other Boards. They take powers to lend the funds that pass into their hands to other Boards that, for anything we know, may prove to be as discredited and incompetent as themselves. The Bill, so far as its 23 clauses are concerned, is a most symmetrical arrangement of sections. It begins with large powers of lending and winds up with large powers of borrowing. I think great powers of this kind should not be annually granted without a full explanation, and more especially when the Body asking for such is of such a character that it may be said to be under police supervision. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
MR. CHANGE (Kilkenny, S.)I beg to second that Motion, and in doing so would point out that, having looked through the clauses of the Bill, I find that it proposes to give power to raise, pay over, or borrow, £4,477,000; and this trifling sum is to be voted by us, and made a charge upon the people of London, without a word of explanation, at half-past 2 in the morning. The Bill is a gigantic combination of Ways and Means and Committee of Supply. This is no hour to deal with such a matter, and when we do approach it, it must be with considerable information in excess of that, if I may call it so, we now possess.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORI wish to know whether the Secretary to the Treasury is going to allow this Motion to be put without a word from him for or against it? Of course, if he agrees to the Motion I need say no more.
§ MR. JACKSONI am really sorry to find myself in opposition to hon. Members on this matter; but allow me to say, in reference to what has fallen from the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), and in regard to the accounts, that he appears to have overlooked the fact that the accounts are publicly audited by the Treasury Auditor; and, so far as that is concerned, the accounts have been so carefully examined and sifted that I should be quite prepared 867 to vouch for them myself. With reference to the borrowing powers referred to, they are powers, or extensions of powers, already given by Parliament, and which are renewed from year to year. Hon. Members will see, if they refer to the Bill, some powers are exhausted, some unexhausted, and in some cases additional powers are taken. For instance, there are additional powers to lend money for the building of police stations and central offices. But I am not aware there is anything particularly new in the Bill; they are simply extensions of powers Parliament has already granted. As to lending to the Board of St. Pancras, that, also, Parliament has authorized. The Board of Works has power to lend money to the Board of St. Pancras, if satisfied with the security; and they would not lend money without satisfactory security. I really think the opposition to the Bill which is now raised is hardly justified, as if there was anything new in principle contained in the Bill. I have no great desire to take the Bill to-night, more than any other night; but I really hope we may be allowed to take the second reading, and at the subsequent stage there will be ample opportunity to discuss any particular point.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 108: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 340.) [2.20 A.M.]
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)Sir, the object of this Bill is to continue the Act of 1875, which expired last year. It is to extend the borrowing powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and I should like for a minute or two to call the attention of the House to one or two items of the extension. Under Subsection 2, the Board are asking an increase of borrowing powers from £10,000 to £31,000; that item alone showing more than three times as much as last year. Then, in Sub-section 4, they are asking an increase from £28,000 to £57,000; in Sub-section 5, an increase from £61,000 to £102,000; and in Sub-section 6, an increase from £32,000 to £44,000. They practically want to extend their borrowing powers very considerably; and as the Metropolitan taxpayers already have very 868 heavy rates to pay I strongly object to the proposal. I think half-past two in the morning is not the proper time to give such extended powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works; and, therefore, I move that the House do now adjourn.
§ MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid.)I rise for the purpose of seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend. I think it is extremely undesirable that the House should proceed at this hour of the night to discuss questions of this kind. It is unreasonable to ask the House now to pass a Bill which gives to a public Body, at the present time under grave public suspicion, power to embark in very extensive operations. The best proof that there was no anticipation that this Bill would be brought on tonight is, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Epping Division of Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who is now responsible in this House for the transactions of the Metropolitan Board of Works, is not in his place, and I may also point out the printed copies of the Bill have only just been placed in the hands of Members, who have not had an opportunity of examining it. It is useless to contend that the Treasury is responsible in anything more than a technical sense for the accuracy of the figures given in the statement issued with the Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Dr. Clark.)
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)In the first place, I should like to point out that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Epping Division of Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) has nothing whatever to do with this Bill. But the Government are not prepared to carry on the contest at this hour of the night; and, therefore, if the Motion for the adjournment of the House is negatived or withdrawn, the Government is prepared to assent to the second reading being postponed.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)Will my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury undertake to bring the Bill forward at a time which will give us an opportunity of discussing it? I am sure the hon. Gentleman is alive to the enormous interest excited 869 in the mind of the Metropolitan taxpayers at the present moment with, regard to the Board of Works. He will say that that is a question, for the Metropolitan Members; but while the majority of those Members belong to a Party in which I have no confidence, the hon. Gentleman will allow me to exercise my rights as a London ratepayer. Will he consent to make the Bill the first Order of the day for Wednesday week, and thus give us an opportunity of discussing it? The hon. Gentleman is the last man in the world I would like to inconvenience; but I give him fair warning that any attempt to push the Bill through at a moment when there are not due facilities for discussing it will receive from me renewed opposition.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)I wish to ask the Government, for the information and convenience of hon. Members, if there is any responsible official now representing the Board of Works in this House? The Chairman of the Board has, we know, been promoted to "another place," and I am sure I do not envy him; but we do desire there should be someone in his place to whom we can direct our inquiries. I hope that when the Bill is again brought on, the Government will see that some Member of the Board of Works able to give explanations will be present.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ Debate arising;
§ Debate adjourned till Thursday.