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.

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- 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.

I understood the Chairman of Ways and Means to say so.

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.

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

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.

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?

Before the Bill passes its final stage, I wish to enter a protest against the way in which enormous 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- 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

I will not detain the House for more than one or two minutes; but I wish to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India whether he can give the House some definite assurance with regard to the Indian Councils Bill next year? It has been a matter of great regret to many Members of the House, and, I believe, to a large number of persons in India, that that Bill has not been proceeded with this Session. This is the third Session in which a Bill substantially of the same character has been before the House. It is perfectly true that the measure did not meet with the approval of some hon. Members. Among others, the late Mr. Bradlaugh, who took a great interest in Indian questions, and whose death we all lament, was strongly opposed to the Bill, and I myself took the liberty of putting down a Motion on the Second Reading with regard to the adoption of the elective principle in the measure. It was desired to extend the scope of the Bill; but although the opposition which was offered may have; postponed the progress of the measure, nothing can mitigate our regret that the Bill has not been discussed during the present Session. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will not find fault with me when I say that the constant dropping of the Bill cannot fail to create a very bad impression. It must show the people of India, who take a great interest in the matter, and especially what are called the Congress Party there, that there has been no sincere intention on the part of the Government to pass the Bill. I believe it is the fact that Sir William Wedderburn has recently received a letter from the Secretary of State for India, dated the 28th of July, in which he states that the withdrawal of the Bill was not due to any fault of the Government, but to circumstances beyond their control. With all due respect, that statement is not altogether accurate. It is absolutely the fault of Her Majesty's Government that the Bill was not advanced and passed into law. It would not have occupied more than two days of the time of the House—one day for the Second Reading and another to get it through Committee. Therefore, to say that it was not the fault of the Government that the Bill was not pressed forward is trifling with the House. I am ready to admit that it has not been the fault of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, but of those who have had the arrangement of the business of the House. There was a chance offered in the early part of the Session, when the Bill nearly came on by accident; but the discussion upon the previous subject was prolonged, and we never heard any more of the Councils Bill. I think the fact is deeply to be regretted, and I should like to say that when the Government re-introduce the Bill, as I hope they will, next Session, they will reintroduce it in a somewhat wider form and show a more favourable leaning to the adoption of the elective principle in the Provincial Councils. It is well known that that was the view of Lord Dufferin; and we have never been told why Her Majesty's Government have gone back from the opinion of Lord Dufferin, who, in his Despatch, distinctly expressed himself in favour of the elective principle. I trust that the House will receive a definite promise from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary that he will have this Indian Councils Bill brought on fairly and properly for discussion at an early period next Session, and it would also give great satisfaction to many hon. Members if the right hon. Gentleman could promise that the Bill will contain in some moderate degree a recognition of the elective principle.

I would also press upon the Government the necessity of allowing the House to discuss, at any rate, the provisions of the Bill which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend. I would further express a hope that the Government will, during the Recess, consider the wishes of the people of India in reference to the introduction of the elective principle into the Indian Councils. In my opinion, that is the only proper way of governing the people of India, and the only way in which any legislative measure connected with that country can be properly considered, having regard to the interests of the people of India. What I wish is that Her Majesty's Government, instead of making another Ireland of India, should consider this question in good time; and now that the people of India have to a large extent been educated, that they will take them into their confidence as far as possible. I would also ask the Government to endeavour to bring forward the Indian Budget at an earlier period next Session. Everyone knows that to bring it forward in the dog days, as was the case last night, is practically a farce. There were only a handful of Members here to consider it, although it affects the prosperity and well-being of some 200,000,000 or 300,000,000 of people. Every year attempts are made to dispose of Indian questions without adequate consideration and without proper debate. I have no desire to blame the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India, because I do not know that he has had anything to do with the matter, and we all know that he has a very poor opinion of the Government of India, and the way in which the people of India are treated.

I never stated anything of the kind.

I should be sorry to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but I gathered that to be his opinion from a speech which he delivered not long ago, and it is certainly the view which the newspapers have taken. This question of bringing in the Indian Budget at an earlier period of the Session has been spoken of hundreds of times; before, and what I wish to impress on the Government, in the interests of Great Britain as well as of India, is the desirability (now that the franchise is being extended, and the people of this country are taking a deeper interest in the affairs of the Empire than they did formerly) of giving us an opportunity of considering these matters at an earlier period of the Session.

I feel grateful to the hon. Member for giving me an opportunity of saying a word about the Indian Councils Bill. This Bill was brought in, as he has said, three Sessions ago. It was brought in in order to make good the pledge given by the Viceroy of India, with the sanction of the Secretary of State, that two small but not unimportant reforms should be made in the proceedings of the Council—that, in the first place, the right of interpolation in certain conditions should be given to members of the Council; and that, in the second place, they should have an opportunity of discussing the Indian Budget, although no change should take place in the taxation of the country. It was found, soon after this pledge was given, that it would be impossible to carry out what the Viceroy proposed without legislation, because the old Indian Councils Act, which was drawn apparently for the purpose of repressing discussion, was so stringent in its terms that these two reforms could not be carried out without an alteration in the law. Therefore, the Indian Councils Bill was brought in. At the same time a further reform was introduced in the Bill, which had not been made the subject of any definite pledge on the part of the Viceroy, and that was to increase somewhat the numbers both of the Viceroy's Council and the Councils in the various provinces. This Bill as it stood was a very small measure. It was a Bill which was to carry out a reform which everybody desired, to which the Government had given their assent, and which gentlemen who may be called "the Indian Congress Party" had repeatedly solicited, and there was nothing to prevent the people of India enjoying the benefit of these improvements in the Constitution during the last three years, except that the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. M'Laren) and his friends—those gentlemen who profess to represent in this House the opinion of India—chose to use this extremely simple and small measure as a peg on which to hang a discussion of the whole Constitution of India and a proposal to introduce into the Constitution of India what they vaguely call "representative institutions," as to the nature of which they are not themselves agreed, and of the consequences of which they have themselves no conception whatever. Well, although the Bill is a small one, the question which is hung on it is a question of extreme importance, and one which certainly ought not to be lightly passed by the House without ample and complete discussion. In consequence of the appendage which hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves placed on this very modest measure of reform, it has been found impossible for the Government in either of the past Sessions of Parliament to devote that time which is necessary to the consideration of a matter so important to the future interests of India. I cannot promise that the House of Commons in the coming Session will have leisure to discuss and decide this great constitutional question, and I am afraid that if the hon. Member for Crewe and his friends persist in the course they have adopted for the past three years, the people of India will have to wait a little longer before they can enjoy those modest but excellent reforms promised so long ago by the Viceroy. With regard to the present Session, the Government is at least perfectly innocent in connection with the withdrawal of the Bill, because I understand, on what I believe is excellent authority, that the Bill was abandoned at the special wish of the leaders of the Party opposite; and that when certain negotiations took place as to bringing this Session to an early close, the Indian Councils Bill was one of those innocents which hon. Gentlemen opposite insisted on having sacrificed.

Perhaps, with the permission of the House, I may say this—the right hon. Gentleman would not wish that anything he said should be open to misunderstanding. Therefore, I would like to ask whether he wishes by his speech to indicate that those who are in favour to some extent of the Indian Congress programme should have let this Bill go through without discussion? Does he complain that we attempted to discuss the Bill and widen its scope?

No; I tried to explain that I did not complain of their discussing the Bill, bat I did complain that they should take advantage of the Bill to introduce a much larger and more comprehensive measure. It was perfectly in order to do so in this House; but it had the effect of rendering the small reform projected by the Viceroy of India and Her Majesty's Government perfectly impossible.

I will not detain the House two minutes, for I am not an authority on Indian affairs, and I think that some of those who stand up opposite to speak on them have as little authority as myself. But I do sometimes read matter which is sent to me for perusal. I have read matter sent to me by Committees in which hon. Gentlemen opposite are interested, and my study of it has led me to the conclusion that if those hon. Gentlemen, or those they represent, would refrain from stumping India, and from telling the Radical people there that they are badly treated, we should have a better opportunity—as the Under Secretary for India has said—of doing good for the people of India. The fact is, that all those who wish to do a good stroke, as they think, for Radicalism, think that not only ought they to do it in every part of England, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, but that, when they have done it there, they should detach some of their regular forces, and do it in India, too. We know that India is not fit for this sort of thing. We know that in the Empire of Russia they tried to adopt English institutions—they tried to establish Justices of the Peace—but the whole thing was a total failure. So it is in India. Therefore, I support what Her Majesty's Government have said, and I hope we shall have less of this stumping India by discontented ex-Viceroys or anybody else.

I beg to move to report Progress, on the ground that it is absolutely impossible for the measure to become law this Session. There are eight pages of Amendments-to it in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and the Attorney General. It is so full of contentious matter that it cannot be-passed this day, and even if it passed this House it could not pass the other House also. We should, therefore, only waste time by going into Committee on the Bill.

The last time I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton he informed me that he intended to wash his hands of the measure altogether. I do not see why the Committee should expect me to wait until the right hon. Gentleman has washed his hands so long as to be able to go on with the Bill. The Bill has been accepted by both sides of the House, and its Second Reading has been carried without a dissentient vote. It is a Bill that tends to religious equality by dispensing with the attendance of a lawyer's clerk at Nonconformist marriages. It is brought in in the interests of my co-religionists—the Wesleyan Methodists—and is supported by hon. Members opposite, who have been stumping Cornwall and other parts of the country with me. I have brought this measure forward every Session for the last six years, and I hold in my hand letters from Lord Salisbury expressing his high approval of the measure, and requesting me to press it forward. We have a special claim on our leaders, if they can lead at all, to lead us in the direction of giving us this boon.

I have no doubt that this is a very good Bill; but, at the same time, we must look at this matter from a practical point of view. It is evident that the measure cannot be passed this Session. It has to go through this House and then through the House of Lords. Whatever time, therefore, we devote to the consideration of the Bill to-day will practically be lost.

No, no!

I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should take advantage of the discussion which has taken place to produce next Session a Bill that will meet with general acceptance. The feeling of the House is in favour of the measure, but the real question is the question of how to work it out. In the meantime, I think we must feel that we shall lose our time by going into Committee.

I beg to suggest that, in considering the Bill, we should be much better employed than in walking about losing time between now and the Prorogation. I have made every alteration that is necessary in the Bill to meet the views of the Attorney General. I have provided for the protection of the interests of Registrars; I have altered the fees in a manner that is satisfactory. I have conceded every necessary alteration to the critics of the Bill, and I would urge its supporters not to be flouted when there is ample time to pass it.

I do not see why the House of Commons should not pass the Bill through all its stages, and send it to the House of Lords, who can take a course similar to that which they are about to bake with the Appropriation Bill, and pass the measure through all its stages.

It is impossible to ask the House of Lords to consider the Bill now, as they have adjourned, and will not meet again, except for the reading of the Speech from the Throne. It is true, as the hon. Member for Boston has said, the noble Lord at the head of the Government has expressed approval of the principle of the Bill; but the difficulties in the way of passing it now are of a practical character, and cannot be overcome. I therefore hope my hon. Friend will not persevere with the Bill this Session.

I would appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Boston to withdraw the Bill. The Government have promised that no contentious business shall be taken; and if the hon. Gentleman persists in the course he is now pursuing, he will be prejudicing one of the best measures which has ever been before the House. I am strongly in favour of the measure; but, as many hon. Members have left the House in the belief that no contentious business would be taken, I would strongly urge the hon. Member, in his own interest and that of the Bill, not to persevere with the measure.

The President of the Local Government Board has absolutely proved my case. I thought that, as the Appropriation Bill had only just passed this House, the clerks would be preparing it for the House of Lords; but what is my astonishment to find that it has already passed through all its stages in the House of Lords, and that their Lordships adjourned some minutes ago! It would be possible for the House of Lords to do the same thing before the Prorogation with this Bill. They could pass it in a couple of minutes.

They would not be able to consider the Amendments at all.

I would wish to add my appeal to the hon. Member not to press the Bill. I not only opposed the Second Reading, but it will be my duty to oppose the measure in all its stages. Under these circumstances, my hon. Friend must see that it is impossible to proceed with a Bill which will require very careful handling in Committee to make it acceptable even to those who voted for the Second Reading.

In reply to the last speaker, I may mention that I received a letter from a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, declaring that the hon. Gentleman does not represent that Church at all in what he said about this Bill. The priest begged me to take no notice of the hon. Gentleman, as the Church wants the Bill carried. Under these circumstances, I hope the hon. Gentleman will take advice before he obstructs his spiritual superior. If he does not, I shall be compelled to write to the priest and point out the course he has pursued. Not only has Lord Salisbury expressed approval of the Bill, but he has written to me saying I should push it on, and he trusted I would get it through. I think I know more of Lord Salisbury's intentions as to this Bill than the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. I see no reason why the Bill should not be proceeded with today.

As a Roman Catholic, not repudiated yet, at all events, by his ecclesiastical superiors, I must say I think that my co-religionists in Ireland would be insulted if an attorney's clerk were brought in to act as Registrar of Marriages. In Ireland the priests do that. I intend, however, to support the Motion for Progress, and I do not want to be misunderstood in doing so. The hon. Member for Boston says he wishes to avail himself of this opportunity to press his measure, but I understand from the Government that there is no such opportunity. The "opportunity" does not exist, and in forcing the Bill through on such a day as this we shall be killing time in a contentious sort of way, but we shall not be advancing the measure the right hon. Gentleman has at heart. I would appeal to the hon. Member again to take the sensible advice of the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division, and withdraw the Bill now and bring it forward next Session.

I am in favour of the principle of the Bill, but I feel that, under existing circumstances, there is no alternative but to vote for reporting Progress.