CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 17 May 1882)

§ MR. WILLIAMSON
said there were provisions in the Bill of a very dangerous character, and that it would not be of the utility that Irish Members supposed. He was not opposed to give grants of public money for the promotion and keeping in repair of all fishery harbors on our exposed coasts; but as regarded the East Coast of Scotland, the Government had recently given them to understand that no further grants of public money were to be given for these purposes. On the very day that declaration was made this Bill passed a second reading, and he believed his own was the only voice raised not in protest against it, but to call attention to the fact that one principle was applied to Ireland which was not applied to the other exposed coasts of the country. For himself, he should like to see £500,000 sterling given to harbor purposes every year; but he thought the piecemeal principle he had referred to of absolutely refusing even the consideration of these grants to Scotland rather a singular method of proceeding. On the understanding, however, that by granting this Bill the principle was to be applied all round, he would not oppose the Bill.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said that the present Government had taken up this question because the previous Government had committed themselves to the principle of a loan and a grant. He cordially agreed in many of the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for the St. Andrew's Burghs (Mr. Williamson), and was quite willing to see the system of grants for the purpose of improving all fishery harbors extended to England and Scotland. His own opinion was that many millions might with advantage be spent in the way of improving harbors; but the greatest care being taken to employ efficient engineers, and otherwise to provide against any waste of the money granted. The Government could not render a more useful service to the Kingdom than by examining into the results of all previous outlays, public 947 and private, on harbors, with a view to expose the defects, as well as successes, in respect to the works. In that way, the knowledge, which too often died with the life of an engineer, would be placed on record; and thus the mistakes, as well as successes, would form guides to the engineers of the existing generation. Till then, money could not safely be invested in harbor works.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said that a similar scheme had received the attention of the late Government, who, however, felt themselves unable to accede to the terms of the Wicklow Copper Mining Company, and were not disposed to pay money for what they considered of no value whatever. The principal difference between the present Bill and the Bill introduced by the late Government was that the present Bill involved a payment of £5,000 to the Mining Company, and also a larger expenditure upon the harbor than was previously contemplated. The present Government, he had no doubt, had fully satisfied themselves of the expediency of what was now proposed; and, therefore, he would not oppose the Bill.

§ MR. WARTON
said he was in favor of making grants for the purpose of saving the lives of sailors, irrespective of the question whether they were the lives of English or Irishmen. He would, however, be glad to see the Irish bestir themselves a little more in the use they made of their own fisheries. He was surprised to find in Kerry—a county with over 210,000 inhabitants, and over 100 miles of coast line—only 21 persons were engaged in that industry; and he hoped they would in future show a greater disposition to help themselves in the matter.

§ MR. H. S. NORTHCOTE
said he supported the Bill, because it was merely an enabling Bill to carry out an arrangement, the principle of which was sanctioned by the late Government, and also on the ground of general utility.

§ MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE
said the principle on which the Government proceeded in this matter was the improvement of the Irish fisheries. He need not speak of the importance of bringing that before the House. With regard to the difference in principle between the two Bills, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), it 948 was perfectly true that a sum of £5,000 was to be paid to the Wicklow Copper Company, and the reason was that unless that sum was paid it would be impossible for the harbor to be proceeded with. The Company had rights which they would not forego, and accordingly the Government was compelled to purchase them. Some further expenditure would also have to be incurred in consequence of a violent storm, in which the existing works suffered considerably. The details of the Bill had been carefully considered by the Select Committee; and he thought that the report of the engineer to the harbor was thoroughly satisfactory. He trusted his estimate of the cost of the work would stand the test of experience.