§ 4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
§ 5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,200 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."
§ 6. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,015, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1901, for the 1671 Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."
§ Resolutions read a second time.
§ First Resolution:—
§ MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)said they had now been dealing with Supplementary Estimates for several nights, and no further information had been given them. The Estimates had been prepared in a very loose way, for even in regard to fixed charges like rent and insurance an extra, £5,500 was required. Although the Imperial Institute and the London University was not in the nature of a. museum or a picture gallery they were, now proposing to spend nearly £10.000 upon it. There was. however, an item of £2,000 for the Intelligence Department of the War Office to which he did not object, for he thought they needed to spend more money on that Department. He did not know why all this extra expenditure on regard to electric lighting should have been incurred, because there never was a time when greater economy should have been practised in all Government departments. He did not think sufficient reasons had been given to justify the voting of this large sum of £35,000, and he begged to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out '£35,200,' and insert '£35,100' instead thereof."—(Mr. Tully.)
§ Question proposed, "That £35,200 stand part of the Resolution."
§ MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.)said that when this Vote, was before the Committee Member after Member on this side of the House rose and complained of the way in which the Estimates were brought before the House. Before that money was voted he should like to have full details given to the House. He was of opinion that most of this expenditure ought to have been foreseen. There was £3,000 set down in connection with the Latent Office, and although £20,000 was spent there last year they were now asked for £3,000 more. The First Commissioner of Works had told them that 1672 by carrying out this work they would save £750 a year, but he could not understand how he made this out, and he should like the matter cleared up. He found that there was a sum of £3,125 for the adaptation of Hertford House for the Wallace Collection, but that was on the top of a previous expenditure of £160,000. He represented a poor constituency, and objected to that expenditure for a London show. Then there was the item "Furniture," £1,325, which was an increase of 50 per cent, over the previous year. He could not understand how the expenditure for furniture should have gone up to such an enormous extent. It was an item that ought to be stationary. Then there was an increase of £3,400 on household articles, which surely warranted some explanation, as did also the increase of £950 on the Die and Medal Department of the Royal Mint. He hoped his friends would look carefully into these increases of expenditure, and that they would have some support from both sides of the House in putting pressure on the Government to reduce expenditure. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed, but the public would not laugh when they saw the Budget, and when hon. Gentlemen went down to their constituencies after the Budget their constituents would not laugh. Every penny ought to be turned over two or three times before being spent, instead of these thousands of pounds being thrown away.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)said the House owed a debt of gratitude to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because he had given information to hon. Members which they did not have when these Estimates were last considered. When the Supplementary Estimates were being discussed in Committee last, a high financial authority on the opposite side of the House pointed out that the system of Supplementary Estimates was going from bad to worse, entirely owing to the fact that the Estimates were not properly criticised, and that the Treasury had got into a reckless method of keeping their accounts. For example, there was an increase of £5,500 for rents, insurance, and tithe-rent charges. Now, if there was one item which was supposed to be stationary 1673 it was rent. If the rents had gone up, why was that so? They ought to have some information on that point. He had some knowledge of insurance matters, and he was not aware that premium rates had gone up. Again, in all departments tithe-rent charges had gone down; and why should they have gone up in this case? He complained that they got no details from the Government under any of these heads. An hon. and frugal Gentleman from Scotland criticised in a few and pointed remarks some of the subjects under A, relating to new works, alterations, additions, and purchases, and asked for explanations, but none had been forthcoming. In regard to the Wallace Collection, why was it that £3,125 had been spent in addition to the previous £160,000 for converting one of the finest mansions in London and fitting it up for the storage of that collection? He believed it was impossible to over-estimate the value of that collection, but it was quite unreasonable to ask the poor taxpayers in Dublin or Cork to pay for what they would never have a chance of seeing He thought hon. Members above the gangway had not applied their minds to Supplementary Estimates during the present session or in previous sessions. Anyone acquainted with structural alterations would not believe that £163,000could have been spent in Hertford House in making ready that mansion for the priceless collection it now contained. If any hon. Member got a plan of the mansion as it formerly existed, it would be impossible for him to conceive how that enormous sum of money had been spent. Then they were asked for £10,000 for the Imperial Institute for the purposes of the London University, and yet the House was too niggardly to grant even £1,000 to Queen's Colleges in Ireland, to provide proper instruction for clinical students. No adequate explanation had been given of that Supplementary Estimate. The imperial Institute—that precious monument of Imperial imbecility—had never, not even in its amusements, been able to compete with a twopenny-halfpenny circus, and could not compete with private enterprise such as was displayed at Earl's Court in any one particular. Yet they were now asked to vote £10,000 more, sub silentio, for 1674 that Institute. They would not pass it in silence, but would comment on such expenditure, especially in such times. With reference to the £2,000 spent on Winchester House, he would not object if it were for the purpose of improving the Intelligence branch of the War Office or the Foreign Office, but after what had occurred during the last year and a half, not one penny should he spent on the Intelligence Department, He thought hon. Members were justified in reiterating their protest against the large and progressive increases asked for in the Supplementary Estimates without any adequate explanation regarding them being given.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,) kent, St. Augustine'sI shall reply, as shortly as I can, to the various criticisms which have been addressed to me by hon. Members. The hon. Member for South Kilkenny asked me to explain why details in the Estimates had been given in full so far as Sub-head A was concerned, but not as regards other sub-heads, and he stated that in the Supplementary Estimates for last year details were given in full. I stated the other night that it has always been the practice to give details only of new services in the Supplementary Estimates, but I do not intend to pass over the criticism of the hon. Member, and will endeavour to give him the fullest explanation I can. First of all the hon. Member asked me with regard to the Census buildings. In connection with that the Supplementary Estimate now asked for could not have been fore-seen when the original Estimate was framed. That Estimate was prepared in October,1899, and of course we knew then that the Census would be taken this year, but the Census Bill had not even been passed. After the original Estimate was framed we were asked by the Registrar General for further accommodation, first of all for an increased staff, which was necessary for the collection of the further details required, and for the greater expedition which was generally desired, and also because it had been decided to establish a female staff, for whom separate accommodation was necessary. Then a complaint was made by the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board with regard to the sanitation 1675 and ventilation of these buildings, and Professor Corfield, one of the best authorities on sanitation and ventilation, visited the buildings, and a further sum of money was required to carry out the improvements he suggested. It would therefore have been impossible for the Department to have foreseen this additional expenditure as long ago as October, 1899.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)Divide, divide!
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)I wish to ask whether the noble Lord the son of the Prime Minister is entitled to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? Because you are the Prime Minister's son you have no right to interrupt.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has no right to address personally any member of the House.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYHe has no right to interrupt us either. Send for your police and turn him out. [Cries of "Police! Police! Police!"]
§ *MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Gentleman does not keep more order I shall have to call on him to leave the House.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYVery well, Sir, go on. You will not call on him, though, to go out. We will stand no nonsense from him.
§ MR. AKERS DOUGLASThe next hon. Gentleman asked me to explain the amount required for the Patent Office extension. I must appeal to my hon. friends to allow me to explain. It is quite impossible for me to address the House while they arc speaking. The hon. Member said that this was not a, pressing expenditure. It is not an excess over the, original Estimate at all, being within the total sum asked for. But if we had not pressed forward this payment we should not have been able so soon to provide accommodation for the library at the Patent Office, and would have had to continue a payment of £700 a year for a temporary building. The lease of the building expires in 1904. Fortunately there is a 1676 break in it, and if we now avail ourselves of that, we shall be enabled to save £700 during the next three years. I think that is a reason why urgency can be pleaded. Another hon. Member asked me a question with reference to some of the items on page 8. One of them refers to the rentals of new buildings which have been taken within the current year for the further accommodation required by the War Office in consequence of the expeditions which have been sent out to South Africa, the recruiting of the Yeomanry, and various other duties entailing an increased staff. A large proportion of the charge for light and fuel is in respect of these new offices. The hon. Member has asked me about the charges in connection with the Wallace collection. The original charge was £125,000, and that included the purchase of the freehold, the purchase of the lease, and the cost for the very large buildings which were added at the rear. This sum of £3,125 was for furniture to equip the buildings for opening to the public, and after all it is a very small sum, I think, to pay for furnishing the buildings in return for the munificent bequest which we have received.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)said the right hon. Gentleman had met them in a conciliatory spirit, and had shown his desire to meet every objection that had been raised. If the criticisms from the Irish benches were always met in the same spirit it would be more satisfactory. After the explanation which had been given he would recommend his hon. friend not to further discuss the Vote, but allow it to pass.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Second Resolution:—
§ MR.T.M. HEALYcalled attention to the fact that merely upon Government property alone in Ireland, in consequence of the passing of the Local Government Act, the sum of £3,000 had come as an additional charge on the ratepayers. It must be remembered that the charge was fixed 1677 by the Government themselves, and that 'they had no power to assess the amount which ought to be borne by the Government rateably, with regard to the other buildings existing in the country, and they had constantly to meet the outcry against the small amount the Government had to pay. To what was this additional charge of £3,000 due? It was due to the profligate system of advancing salaries by the Local Government Board. Nobody in the country was a bit better off except the officials. There was not a soul throughout the thirty-two counties, from the Nationalist county in the south to the Orange county in the north, better off. They had advanced the salaries from crossing sweeper up to the secretary of the county council. When Ireland was not better off and better cared for, why was it that the peasant in his sheeling should have to pay this additional charge? If the right hon. Gentleman could show that a single road was better kept he should be slow to offer criticism in respect of this sum, but they knew that not a single shilling of this amount went to any local credit, except into the pockets of the worthless class who had been maintained by the grand jury system in the country. How could they defend it? Was it not money entirely thrown away because of action which the supreme court of appeal had condemned as illegal? The High Court had declared that every one of the sealed orders issued had been illegal. Why should the Government bring this additional charge on the ratepayers of the country, having regard to the fact that the Estimate was prepared when it was assumed there was some legality in the charges, and that they should not be blotted out? Some Members might be of opinion that it was the desire of the Irish party to obstruct the business of the House. There was no such intention, and he resented the attacks which had been made upon them by some of the scions of nobility opposite. Their only desire was to criticise the Estimates in so far as they had a bearing on the ordinary daily life of the people of Ireland.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,) Worcestershire, E.I scarcely think that the hon. and learned Member 1678 can expect me to follow him into a detailed examination of the Irish Local Government Act. I scarcely think that I should be in order if I attempted to do so. We have agreed to a payment in lieu of votes equivalent to the amount which would be charged if the property were not in the occupation of the Crown. We have accepted that principle, and it is certainly a principle which we have no reason to be very fond of, because it means a charge on the Imperial Exchequer. The money so taken from the Imperial Exchequer goes in relief of the local rates, and it is a little discouraging that a Vote of this character should be open to the very bitter criticism which the hon. and learned Member opposite has levelled against it. This additional sum is needed because the rates have risen.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWhy have they risen?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIt must be perfectly obvious to the House that over the local rates we have no control. We have promised to pay our fair proportion of what those rates are. It is the new local authority which has raised the rates.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYNo.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe new local authority has raised the rates. | No.] It is not a matter which we can check, and if it were true that the whole of the increases were due, as the hon. and learned Member suggests, to salaries in connection with the Local Government Board, it would still be not a. matter over which the Treasury had any control. But I do not think there is any foundation for that assumption. In any case the whole of this is a charge which falls on the Treasury automatically in consequence of the rise in rates, and unless we are to break our agreement—which is one beneficial to the ratepayers—I am bound to ask the House to pass this Vote.
§ MR. MURNAGHAN (Tyrone, Mid)complained that the Irish contribution was out of all proportion to the amount it should be. The contribution to the English rates was about one hundred times as much as that to the Irish rates. 1679 Moreover, the increase in rates in Ireland was 8 per cent., while in England it was no more than one per cent. That in itself showed that the rates in Ireland were growing beyond all reason, and seeing that in the rich country of England £1 was felt no more than 1s. in Ireland, the gentlemen of England should show more consideration towards the Irish people in this matter.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)agreed that this matter could and ought to be discussed on the Local Government Board Vote. The Local Government Board in Ireland had treated the local authorities with the utmost contempt, and the House ought certainly to have some assurance that such conduct would be stopped.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the hon. Member for East Waterford had suggested, and he agreed, that this question should be remitted to a future occasion.
§ Third Resolution:—
§ MR. T. M. HEALYunderstood the Government were carrying on in Donegal and elsewhere very considerable works, but the mode in which those works had been conducted was not satisfactory. It was also understood that the Government had already suggested that the gentleman chiefly responsible should retire from the service. With that decision he had not the slightest fault to find, but would the Secretary to the Treasury state how much the Government expected to pay in respect of extras, and who was to replace the gentleman responsible for the blunderings which had caused the extra demands? Was it to be a another Scotsman?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was unable to state the name of the 1680 successor to the gentleman referred to, as he had not yet been appointed. The Vote under consideration, however, had nothing to do with the gentleman the hon. and learned Member had in mind, but was for repayments to the county council and local bodies in respect of a portion of the guarantees. He would look into the points raised, but for the moment he had not the figures by him.
§ Further Consideration of remaining Resolutions deferred till To-morrow.