HC Deb 25 July 1842 vol 65 cc612-4

House in Committee of Supply.

On the question that 12,434l. be granted for the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland,

Mr. Hume

objected, and referred to his proposal, seventeen years ago, to abolish the office of Lord-lieutenant. As it was understood that the present Lord-lieu- tenant was about to be withdrawn, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet would appoint no successor.

Sir R. Peel

As reference has been made to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, I may be allowed to say that, so far from there existing any intention to withdraw my noble Friend, his conduct has met with the most decided approbation of Government. He is about to leave Ireland, it is true, but only for a short time, and for the recovery of his health, which has suffered from too close application to the duties of his office— duties which are so numerous, and which he has so zealously discharged. His leave of absence will be short, for the recovery of that health which is so valuable to the public service.

Mr. Hume

wished the noble Lord to he relieved altogether from such onerous and unhealthy duties in future.

Vote agreed to.

On the question that 35,630l. be granted for Non-conformist, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.

Mr. Hume

objected to it on two grounds —first, that to pay Dissenting Ministers in this way was contrary to the voluntary principle adhered to generally by that body; and secondly, that if the money were granted, it ought to be equally distributed in England, Scotland, and Ireland.

Dr. Bowring

also urged, that to receive this money was contrary to the principles of Dissenters; it could only be taken by them upon undissenting principles.

Sir R. Peel

congratulated the hon. and learned Member upon having introduced into our language a new word from his abundant stores of philology; he referred to the word " undissenting," which he had never heard before, and never wished to hear again.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

said, this was an old grant, and in justice to the loyal and respectable body it could not he taken away without much injury.

Vote agreed to.

Sir G. Clerk

would next propose to take the notes in class No. 6 of the Miscellaneous Estimates, which included the vote for the Caledonian canal. A million had already been expended, and there was now a fair prospect that if the works were put into a perfect state the canal would be generally used, and the saving in insurance alone on vessels going north about, would amply remunerate any further expenditure that might still be required. The works might be completed in three years far 150,000l., and he should therefore propose to take 50,000l. a year. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving a vote of 50,000l. towards the completion of the Caledonian Canal.

Mr. Williams

described these works as a scandalous job. The canal had been open thirty years, was now in a very dilapidated condition, and could not be finished under 300,000l. If there were any chance of the canal being ever of any value, it might be some consolation, but he felt convinced it would never be worth anything.

Sir R. Peel

concurred in much of what had been said by the hon. Member. He had formerly been opposed to the expenditure of the public money upon the undertaking, which lie did not hesitate to say was a most absurd speculation. Had it not been for the application of steam navigation the canal would have been worth absolutely nothing. But the question was, whether it was not better to expend 150,000l., with the hope of a profitable return, than 40,000l. for the purpose of destroying the works. He was reluctant to take the latter course. This notch he would say, that if parties could not he found to contact for the whole works for the sum famed, no part of the money should be laid out, and then it could be left to the House to determine whether they would destroy the works or not. Having, however, already spent 1,035,000l. on the work, his advice was to permit the Government to ascertain whether it was a bonâ fide estimate to complete the work.

Mr. Hume

was satisfied that no one would be found to undertake the work on the proffered conditions. In 1822 he had recommended that the work be abandoned, and he thought the first expense was the best. The evidence of Captain Parry was conclusive that the work was hopeless.

Mr. F. French

said, the work was strictly national as regarded Scotland, and the expense ought not to fall upon the United Kingdom, and he contended that no such advantages had been extended to Ireland.

Sir R. Peel

said, that if an unwise and extravagant course had been taken in one part of the empire, that was no reason why the precedent should be followed in another.

Vote agreed to.