PUBLIC WORKS IN IRELAND.

HC Deb 04 April 1848 vol 97 cc1299-304

COLONEL DUNNE

moved for— Returns showing the amount of all monies expended under the Act 9 and 10 Vic., c. 107, specifying the sums laid out on each Work, and number of Works in each barony of each county in Ireland, undertaken, by the authority of the Board of Works," &c. The works had been conducted in a wasteful manner—an immense staff had been employed, and a lavish expenditure incurred, which would eventually fall on the country gentlemen. It was at least to be expected that those who gave their adhesion to the Government should be supported by it; and as many attacks had been made on the Irish gentry, it was only right that they should be furnished with accounts of the way in which money had been expended, part of which they would so soon have to repay. It would prove highly serviceable in the present excited state of Ireland if Government granted those returns, as it would show some disposition to satisfy their reasonable demands.

SIR P. NUGENT

could not allow the Motion to be put without endeavouring to persuade the House and the Government to accede to it. In many parts of Ireland the expenditure on lands had been greater than the value received in return; and if it were only to satisfy men's minds it should be shown how the vast sums granted by this country, which were so soon to be repaid by Ireland, had been actually laid out. He had letters from gentlemen who complained that under the operation of Mr. Labouchere's letter, the number of overseers in certain cases exceeded the number of labourers, so that the money had been laid out on the staff, and not on those employed by it. As he feared the same evils would be still further developed in the drainage system at present adopted, and would lead to the total ruin of the country, he hoped Government would find it consistent with their ideas of public duty to grant the Motion, as it might serve as some check on the future operations of public bodies in Ireland.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

was sorry to say, after the appeal made by the two hon. Gentlemen who had just addressed the House, that it was not in the power of Government to accede to the Motion; not that they were unwilling to give any reasonable information that might be asked for, but because it would be impossible to give it in such detail as had now been proposed—those details being so enormous, while the time and expense would be very great indeed. So soon as he received notice of the intention of the hon. Member to make this Motion, he wrote to the Chairman of the Board of Works, to ascertain whether he would be able to give such a return? His answer was that, "even supposing it were possible to give the information required, it would take many months to prepare it, while the expense would be enormous." He further stated, that at that moment they were engaged in the preparation of several returns which would embrace much of the information asked for; that these returns were attended with great trouble and expense, each return varying with the information required, so that what did for one return would not answer for another; and the letter concluded by suggesting that, if any Member wished for information as to any particular district, it would be better to frame his Motion accordingly. This letter was signed by Colonel Jones. It appeared, indeed, that a return of this kind would cost several thousands of pounds. If any information was required as to particular works on districts, it would be given with the greatest readiness; but to give a return of "all engineers, pay clerks, overseers, check clerks," and "the number of ablebodied women and decrepid persons, women and children," and also of "all borses, mules, and asses employed," would occupy volumes of paper, and would cost, besides, a large amount of money. But, indeed, some parts of the return asked for had already been given; the number of person employed on the general staff had been given from time to time, as had also the total number of persons employed on the works. As to the original estimates for the works, the amount of the presentments was 10,000,000l:, while the real amount laid out on the works executed was from 4,000,000l. to 5,000,000l. He would again observe, that if information was wanted regarding any particular work, it would be readily furnished;, but he certainly did object to order a return which would cost the Commissioners six months' labour, and a great expense besides.

MR. HUME

said, the hon. and gallant Member who moved for the returns said he and his countrymen would be called on to repay this money, and it was very reasonable that they should ask in what manner it had been laid out. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the chairman of the Board of Works (Colonel Jones); but if he were not mistaken, the conduct of that gentleman had been much animadverted upon in a recent trial in Ireland by a learned Judge, as it appeared he had been in the habit, of signing blank cheques. He could not believe that any public officer in charge of public money could be guilty of such negligence, and mentioned the circumstance in order that it might be explained.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

was glad of the opportunity of stating the real facts of the case of Colonel Jones. It was quite true that Colonel Jones had generally signed blank cheques, but then those cheques could not be paid without the signature of another Commissioner; and when Colonel Jones was absent from Dublin it had been his practice—not a very laudable one—to leave them signed in that way for his colleague to sign so that public business might not be retarded; but he had never left any in the hands of Mr. Mason to be filled up at his discretion; and had he done so, they would not have been payable.

MR. ST. GEORGE

gave his most unqualified support to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington.

MR. B. OSBORNE

said, that though he disapproved of the mode in which the public money had been expended in Ireland, yet as "charity covered a multitude of sins," he would refrain from criticism on that subject. There could be no doubt that in many instances the money had been expended most profligately. As regarded the Motion, he was most anxious to see a clear statement of expenditure. All his experience of the way in which business was managed in Ireland, showed that, let who would be imported into that country, by some unfortunate fatality he would transact business in a slovenly manner. Here was a good Welshman, coming from the very same place in Wales, he believed, as his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. J. Williams); yet no sooner did that gentleman, who was a man of unimpeachable probity, arrive in Ireland, than he attached his name to a blank cheque. This was a specimen of the manner in which the Board of Works performed their duty. When the sum of 8,000l. had been abstracted from the public purse, and Mason had been transported for life for the offence, some inquiry was clearly necessary. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would withdraw the Motion.

SIR D. NORREYS

recommended the hon. Gentleman to move only for the first return, and to withdraw the remainder.

MR. REYNOLDS

said, that in Ireland no local question connected with that country was considered of more importance than this. The hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne) had remarked that the air of Ireland seemed to convert every man of business who was sent there into a bungler. However that might be, he knew no better authority on such a question than the hon. Member himself. As comparisons had been entered into, he must observe that the heads of public offices in Ireland, with scarcely an exception, from the Lord Lieutenant down to the poor-law officers, were either English or Scotch; and so highly did the English and Scotch heads of offices appreciate the talent of their countrymen, that nearly all the subordinates also were imported. However little impression the mention of this fact might produce in England, it produced a very great one on the other side of the Channel.

LORD J. RUSSELL

said: I observe that hon. Members, in speaking of the works in Ireland, leave out altogether the main purpose of those works. They speak of those works as great and useful public works in Ireland, and then say that the labour was not only ill performed, but that a great deal of it would not answer the purposes for which it was designed. That is all very just and very true, if they were right in the object; but the object was not to make public works, but to keep the people alive. We found, on coming into office, an almost entire failure in the main article of food, and the question for our consideration was, how to keep the people alive. We consulted my late lamented Friend, Lord Bessborough, and other persons on whose opinions we could rely, and the result was the framing of the Bill in question. I am quite willing to admit that the Act, framed as it was with the best intention, for the purpose of keeping the people alive, was not the best measure that could be devised; but it must be remembered that the emergency was great—that the circumstances were difficult and pressing—and that the Government showed its anxiety to meet the emergency in the manner which they believed most likely to be successful. It is no doubt easy at this moment to criticise those measures; but the object was one well worthy of the attention of Parliament, of the Government, and of this country; and the purpose was, to a great extent, answered, as those who received relief in wages were thereby enabled to purchase food. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last has adverted again to a topic at all times of somewhat an invidious nature, and which it is not very advisable to dwell upon at the present moment. He has alluded to the number of Englishmen and Scotchmen engaged in public offices in that part of the kingdom. But, in enumerating the cases in point, he has omitted a statement which ought, I think, in justice to have been made. I allude to the first appointment made by the present Government, which was that of an Irishman to the office of Lord Lieutenant; and an Irishman not only, but a nobleman who spent a great portion of each ear in the country, dis- charging the duties of landed proprietor. We were unfortunately deprived of his services by death; and although we appointed an Englishman to succeed him, I took care immediately afterwards that the Chief Secretary should be an Irishman. But what was the consequence of this step, as evidenced at his election? Why, if I had recommended an Englishman to the office he might have been elected without opposition; but there was more exasperation expressed against my right hon. Friend than if he had been an Englishman. This was the reward which the Government got for appointing an Irishman to the office. I may also observe that a short time before this an Irishman was appointed Lord Chancellor, and that an Irishman now holds the office of Under Secretary. The hon. Gentleman, in his catalogue of English and Scotch officials, should not have omitted that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was an Irishman, that the Chief Secretary and Under Secretary were Irishmen, and that the Chancellor was also an Irishman; in fine, that every Member of the Executive Government belonged to Ireland. We might as well complain that an Irishman is the Commander of the Forces in this country, and that two Irishmen are at the head of the metropolitan police. I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not continue to make complaints of this sort; for, though they are not founded in fact, they are likely to be believed by those to whom they are addressed, and thus, to some extent, may be defeated the object which Her Majesty's Government have in view—namely, to do justice to all parts of the United Kingdom.

Motion withdrawn.