THIRD READING. (Hansard, 5 August 1891)

§ (10.25.) MR. MORTON (Peterborough)
Before I finally part with this £32,000,000, I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an explanation upon what I think is a distinct grievance. We have been told that money voted in this House for a certain purpose cannot be spent for any other purpose. That assurance was distinctly given to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means; but I now understand from what occurred on Saturday in answer to a question to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that the Government do propose to take savings under the Diplomatic Vote and expend them for other purposes without the previous consent of Parliament. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to assure me that the law will be respected, and that no money voted for one purpose will be applied to another without the consent of Parliament. I am aware that sometimes this objectionable course has been taken in regard to the Naval and Military Votes, and that the Treasury have been allowed to appropriate unexpended money voted for one purpose and apply it to another, but it has never been the case in connection with the Civil Service Estimates, and I know of no power in regard to those Votes which allows the Treasury or anybody else to spend money for purposes not mentioned in the Vote. I want to have a distinct assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that this practice will not be followed in the future.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.)
I think the hon. Member may rest assured that no money will be spent except with proper legal authority. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will keep a very sharp eye upon the expenditure of public money, and I think that Parliament may rely upon the watch- 1380 fulness of my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member need be under no fear that the money will be spent improperly. The hon. Member has fallen into an error in stating that money saved under a Vote may not be applied to another purpose connected with that Vote.

§ *MR. MORTON
I understood the Chairman of Ways and Means to say so.

§ MR. JACKSON
I think the hon. Member wrongly understood what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is true that in the Civil Service Estimates money voted in one Vote cannot be applied to purposes connected with another Vote, but it is also true that within the Vote itself money voted under one sub-head or the savings under one sub-head may be applied with the sanction of the Treasury to purposes connected with another subhead.

§ *MR. MORTON
Then does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Chairman of Ways and Means was wrong?

§ MR. JACKSON
No, Sir; I do not say anything of the kind. What I said was that I thought the hon. Gentleman was wrong. I hope I have made it clear to the hon. Member that money voted for one Vote cannot be applied to any other Vote, but money voted under one sub-head of a particular Vote can be properly expended under another subhead of the same Vote. Money voted under one Vote cannot be transferred to another Vote. That is not possible, and in this case the hon. Member may rest satisfied that the money voted will be properly applied. There are many precedents where, on the taking of a Vote, the Minister in charge, as in this case, has made a statement to the House stating the intention to apply an unexpended balance to some other purpose connected with the same Vote. The House was fully apprised of the intention of the Government to appropriate the surplus.

§ *MR. MORTON
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he did not make this explanation in reply to the statement of the Chairman of Ways and Means in Committee of Supply?

§ (10.33.) MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
Before the Bill passes its final stage, I wish to enter a protest against the way in which enormous 1381 sums of money have been voted by the House, every farthing of which has to come out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and I cannot help regarding the proceedings as little short of a public scandal, most of the Votes having been rushed through Committee after 12 o'clock at night. I hope that next Session the Estimates will be proceeded with earlier, and will not be brought on between 1 and 4 o'clock in the morning, as has been the case during the present Session, when it has been practically impossible for hon. Members to devote serious attention to the Estimates. I consider that such a way of doing business a most improper one, although I do not blame the present Government in that respect more than the Governments that have preceded it, for no Government appears anxious to have the Estimates thoroughly discussed, Ministers, whoever they may be, being apparently glad of the opportunity of bringing forward the Estimates at such a period of the Session, and at such an hour of the night, or, rather, of the morning, when hon. Members are exhausted and anxious to get home to bed. I do not think that such a course of proceeding is creditable to the British House of Commons. The other night when one hon. Member endeavoured to throw some light on the Estimates, he vainly essayed for 20 minutes to obtain the ear of the Committee. I admired the pertinacity with which the hon. Member kept on repeating himself—a fact which was probably due to the howls of execration with which he was received—until he forced the Committee to listen to him. The Committee had to hear him at last; and if there had not been an attempt to howl him down, the unfortunate delay which was occasioned would not have taken place. Next Session I hope to find a resolute and determined handful of men who will resist this growing practice of taking the Votes after midnight. I would rather that somebody else would undertake the duty; but if no other hon. Member is prepared to do so I will undertake it myself, and will divide against every Vote that is brought on after 12 o'clock. The Votes ought to be brought on earlier in the Session, and I would suggest that next Session they should be taken on some fixed night in each week through- 1382 out the Session, and by that means the rushing of the Estimates through Committee in the scandalous manner to which I have referred would be prevented. If Her Majesty's Government have no regard for their own health or that of hon. Members, they ought to have some regard for that of the officers of the House. Hon. Members can leave the House and get refreshment, or take some exercise on the terrace, whenever they require it, but the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees are glued to their posts hour after hour without any such advantages. I also wish to draw attention to the action of the Government with regard to the London water question. Before we meet again next year the ratepayers of London will have to pay very heavily in consequence of that action. In the early part of the Session the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Causton) endeavoured to induce the Government to bring in a Bill to prevent the Water Companies in London from rating the householders under the new assessment. For some reason or another the Government positively refused to do anything of the kind. A few days ago the President of the Local Government Board expressed his strong disapproval of the action the Water Companies are pursuing in compelling the ratepayers to pay upon the new assessment. By this means tens of thousands of pounds are being extracted from the householders of the Metropolis, to which the Water Companies have no legitimate right. The Government, however, have not only taken no steps themselves to restrain the Water Companies in the matter, but they opposed a measure that was introduced to prevent the unjust action of the Water Companies. [Cries of "Order!"] Perhaps I am wandering a little, but the matter is a very important one.

§ MR. SPEAKER
It is certainly not regular to discuss the question now, although it might have been if there had been a Bill before the House.

§ (10.43.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets, St. George's)
The hon. Member is quite mistaken upon one point, inasmuch as the Bill to which he refers was read a second time and referred to a Select Committee.

§ *MR. CREMER
I know that the London Liberal Members complained of the course the Government pursued, but if I am mistaken I shall be glad to withdraw.

§ *MR. RITCHIE
I can only repeat that the hon. Member is quite mistaken, and that the Bill was read a second time and referred to the Committee on the other Bills referring to the London water supply. The Government consented to the Second Reading of the Bill.

§ *MR. CREMER
The fact that the Bill was read a second time and referred to the Water Committee escaped my memory, but practically I am right, for by referring the Bill to the Water Committee the Government shelved it for this Session, and the result will be that the householders of London will have to pay a heavy penalty in increased charges for water.

§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)
I wish to endorse the suggestion that next Session the Government should take a day a week for Supply at the beginning of the Session [Mr. JACKSON: We did it this Session.] Yes, but there were Motions on going into Committee, and the Government allowed the House to be counted out. From a business point of view nothing can be more disgraceful than the way the Government got the money on Friday night—the reckless way in which the work of the Committee was done. Up to 1 o'clock over £5,000,000 were voted, and then, when all were tired out, and there could he no real discussion, the Committee voted between £15,000,000 and £20,000,000 more. That is the way in which about one-half of the Estimates have been voted this year. ["Agreed, agreed!"] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to cry out "agreed." I confess that I do not like this innovation of 10 o'clock Sittings. I am afraid that it may form a rather dangerous precedent. The Government can easily arrange with their supporters to come down, but it cannot be expected that the Opposition should attend. Before the Session breaks up, I should like to remind the Government that they have in hand £200,000 which should properly be devoted to Irish labourers and teachers; and during the Recess no doubt all sorts of doctrinaire schemes will be submitted for disposing 1384 of it. I hope the Government will not allow the money to be melted away during the Recess because circumstances have prevented the Irish Members from bringing forward their plans for spending it during the Session. It would be a flagrant injustice to take away from the school teachers and labourers the money that is intended for them. I hope the Government will promise not to part with the money till the House meets again.