§ (49.) £3,750, for Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
§ (50.) £27,702, to complete the sum for Temporary Commissions.
§ (51.) £25,003, to complete the sum for Patent Law Expenses.
§ (52.) £11,427, to complete the sum for Fishery Board, Scotland.
§ MR. HENNESSYwished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury. The Vote before the Committee included a sum of £3,000 for piers and quays in Scotland. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) would tell the right hon. Gentleman that at this moment the fishermen in Ireland were very anxious to obtain the means of repairing the piers and quays, which assistance had been promised at the same time of the Union, and which had been given for many years by the House. The Secretary to the Treasury was aware that a grant of £5,000 a year had for a long time been paid to the fishermen of Ireland; but it had been stopped some years ago, and he wished to know why it should not be continued. They had just had the Report laid on the table upon Irish Taxation, and the very last paragraph of that Report stated that in Ireland for a number of years the fishermen received aid from the Government. It ceased some years ago, and the Committee recommended that the Government should re-consider the propriety of again extending the same assistance to the fishermen of Ireland. He wished to know what steps the Government were prepared to adopt under these circumstances, with the view of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee?
MR. PEELsaid, that in 1828 the Lord 1306 Lieutenant had power under the temporary Act to advance £5,000 to Commissioners for the construction of piers and for the materials of fishermen's boats; but that power expired in 1830. About 1845, £90,000 was granted by Parliament for constructing fishery piers, in sums not exceeding £5,000 for any one pier, or three-fourths of the whole expenditure to be incurred. A portion of that grant still remained, and the Board of "Works had recommended to the Treasury that a Bill should be introduced for another grant on the principle of the grant made fifteen years ago, and that proposal was still under the consideration of the Treasury.
MR. WHITEsaid, that this Vote was one of the most objectionable in the Estimates. He had often protested against it, and it was really wonderful to see what longevity belongs to a job—for a job he certainly considered this Vote to be, however un-Parliamentary the term might appear. Here, in the 19th century, they were voting a considerable sum in order to maintain in Scotland a Board for the purpose of branding Scotch herrings. Now, he could not conceive the use of such a Board. They were free traders or professed to be free traders, and yet for the sake of patronage they kept up some of the worst remnants of the old protection system. He must protest against the Vote. The sooner the whole system was got rid of the better. He wished to respect vested interests, and would not deprive those who held offices under the Fishery Board without due notice; but still he thought the whole system must be put an end to, and although he would not at present propose that reduction, or divide against the Vote, he hoped the new Parliament would altogether abolish it.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was quite aware that this matter had often been discussed in the Parliament which was about to expire; and he had no doubt it would also be discussed in the new Parliament. He believed, however, that no solid argument could be advanced against the Vote. The Estimate included a Vote of £3,427 for branding; but if his hon. Friend would turn to the items, he would find that a sum of £4,500 was paid back in the shape of fees for branding, so that the institution was in fact self-supporting. His hon. Friend said it was a remnant of the old Protectionist system. Possibly it might be so, but the position of matters was this—the herring fishing had thriven 1307 in a very wonderful manner under the Board, and Scotch herrings cured under the management of this Board enjoyed a decided preference in the Continental market. His hon. Friend might think it absurd, but it was an undoubted fact that foreign merchants did not so regard the Crown brand affixed by the Board to herrings cured under their direction. No doubt the Crown brand carried with it an enhanced price on the Continent; and without the Crown brand Scotch herrings would not have the preference which they now had. The second part of the Vote was for the general police connected with the herring fishery, and was altogether independent of the branding system. It was absolutely necessary to have some superintendence and security at such places as Wick, for instance, during the fishing season. The third part of the Vote was the smallest and the most needful portion. It was £3,000 to be given for piers and harbours to the small fishing towns in Scotland. The grant was given in return for corresponding amounts advanced in the locality itself; and the House would be surprised to find the sum that the fishermen themselves had been able to advance in order to obtain portions of the grant to be voted. He hoped the House would not hesitate to vote the sum required. Undoubtedly, the Board to which it was granted had administered it hitherto in the most useful manner, and under their auspices the herring fishery of Scotland had attained a point of most successful cultivation.
§ MR. SCULLYsaid, he did not understand whether the money proposed for Ireland was to be advanced by way of loan or grant. It might be interesting to the House, too, to know whether the Crown brand was a broad arrow or not.
MR. PEELsaid, that with reference to the grant made to Ireland and Scotland, the Act by which the former country received the money was only temporary, and expired in 1830. The £5,000 a year formerly granted in Ireland was a free grant. The grant under consideration was to be on the same principle as the £90,000.
§ LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, that there was considerable doubt as to whether the grant in the case of Ireland had expired in 1830. He and other Members of the Irish Taxation Committee dissented from this conclusion, and thought it advisable that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown should be taken on the subject.
§ MR. HENNESSYsaid, that the grants to Scotland and Ireland originated in the same Act of Parliament, but it had been perpetuated to Scotland, and had not to Ireland. Unless the Government were prepared to treat both countries in the same manner he should feel bound to oppose the Vote.
MR. PEELsaid, that £90,000 had been given to Ireland, and that no amount of a similar character had been given to Scotland.
§ MR. HENNESSYsaid, that Scotland had received £3,000 a year for forty years, making a total of £120,000.
§ MR. MARSHsaid, he was not at all interested in the dispute between Scotland and Ireland, because he maintained that neither country ought to receive anything at all. The practice of giving encouragement by means of Government money was contrary to the principles of free trade.
§ MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that it was proved before the Irish Taxation Committee that the Irish fishery suffered from the want of an authentic brand such as was supplied by the Fishery Board in Scotland.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that the Report of the Irish Taxation Committee was not yet before them, and so it was premature perhaps to enter minutely into this discussion. It might be stated, however, that the Committee thought that the Law Officers of the Crown ought to have their attention directed to this question. He thought it undesirable and inconvenient to discuss the question now. When the Report was brought up it might be necessary to take the opinion of the House on the matter.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (53.) £2,000, for Trustees of Manufactures, Scotland.
§ (54.) £39,532, to complete the sum for Local Dues on Shipping under Treaties of Reciprocity.
§ (55.) £1,900, to complete the sum for Inspectors of Corn Returns.
§ (56.) £500, for Boundary Survey, Ireland.
§ (57.) £500, for Brehon Laws, Ireland.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that one volume had already been issued this year, and another volume might be expected in the course of a few months.
§ Vote agreed to.
1309§ (58.) £5,000 Flax Cultivation in Ireland.
MR. FLNLAYsaid, it gave him great satisfaction to find that Ireland was not entirely forgotten by the Government. He wished to know what advantage had been or was expected to be derived from this grant. In Scotland they considered that flax was an exhaustive and undesirable crop injurious to the land. It seemed strange to offer premiums on the cultivation of such an article.
§ MR. MARSHsaid, he thought it was contrary to all principles of political economy for Parliament to grant money for the encouragement of any particular crop in any part of the British territories. Flax ever since the days of Virgil was considered a most exhausting crop.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that the Prime Minister, in consequence of the representations made by a deputation that waited upon him last year, agreed to insert a Vote in the Estimates for the encouragement of flax in Ireland, believing that it would be productive of great good to that country. At the request of the Irish Members £2,000 was granted last year, which had proved so useful that the sum was increased. This was the last year, he believed, it would be given. It did not appear to be an exhausting crop in Ireland, for in Ulster flax had been grown continuously for many years with the greatest success.
§ MR. HENNESSYcomplained of this money being given exclusively to the south and west of Ireland, whereas it was equally wanted in the King's and other central counties, which took a great interest in the flax movement. He would remind the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Marsh) that in the reign of King William III. it was attempted to put down the Irish woollen trade, and that for ages the efforts of the English Parliament had been directed to the repression of the manufactures of Ireland, to which cause her present condition was mainly attributable. It was only fair that Parliament should now make some attempts to remedy past mis-legislation, but he thought the Vote was paltry in amount.
§ MR. SCULLYsaid, the encouragement of flax cultivation in Ireland was of the utmost importance, but it was still a doubtful question whether it was really beneficial or injurious to the land. The Vote was not accurately described. This money was really granted for the 1310 purpose of teaching the farmers of Ireland how to cultivate the growth of flax without exhausting the soil.
§ MR. BLAKEcorroborated the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the expenditure of the money had done great good, and as he was to some extent instrumental in getting up the deputation which waited on the noble Lord last year, should also add that they were led to hope that the grant would have been of a larger character, and was glad i to find that the advantage resulting from it was so manifest as to induce the Government to increase the amount. He would beg hon. Members who seemed disposed to oppose the Vote, to consider whether it was not justified quite as much on Imperial grounds as from any advantage likely to result to Ireland. The disasters occasioned to the manufacturing interest, and which fell heavily on the labouring portion of the English population, must still be fresh in their memory, and they knew it was occasioned by the impossibility of obtaining sufficient cotton, owing to the disastrous war in America. If they had sufficient textile material produced at a moderate price in the United Kingdom they would be quite independent of foreign supply, and would not be subject to a similar calamity in the way of thousands of their people being thrown out of bread as lately occurred. It was, therefore, good policy of the Government to endeavour to promote flax cultivation in Ireland, as it would tend to make them independent of other countries for their supply of textile materials; and, besides, the money paid in Ireland for flax would come back to them again in the purchase of other species of British manufacture.
§ MR. COXsaid, he wished to know to what purpose this £5,000 was applied. Was it for instruction in the manipulation of the crop, or was it an encouragement merely for the growth of it?
§ SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Scully) had just stated the purpose. It would be applied towards the payment of instructors to teach the small farmers in the south and south-west of Ireland how they should manipulate their flax crops without injuring the ground. The money would be placed for distribution in the hands of the Royal Dublin Society and Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland. A Return had been published, in which it was shown 1311 that the most beneficial results had flowed from this arrangement.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (59.) £780, Malta and Alexandria Telegraph, and Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.
§ MR. MARSHsaid, he wished to ask for an explanation of this Vote. He wished to know by what process of arithmetic three-fifths of £500, the expenses of the Government Superintendent at Malta, came to £500, as charged in the Estimates?
§ MR. MOORsaid, he wished to ask what necessity there was of keeping a superintendent at Malta. It was a mistake to say that the cable was held under a lease from the Government until the 1st of January, 1867, because he believed that since the Estimates had been prepared it had been leased for forty-two years longer. If the cable had been so leased, what was the use of keeping a superintendent at Malta with no power over the working of the cable? The Estimate only gave the receipts for nine months, instead of the whole year, as it ought to have done.
§ MR. PEELsaid, that three-fifths of the superintendent's salary was paid out of the Imperial Treasury, and two-fifths by the Indian Government, the line having been laid down at the joint expense of both Governments. Four or five years ago the cable was leased to Messrs. Glass and Elliott up to 1867, and it had since been sub-let with the sanction of the Government to the present company, and the result was that the Imperial Government received one-half of the gross receipts of the line. The lessees were bound to certain conditions, and it was necessary to have a superintendent on the spot to see that the line was properly worked and the fair share of the earnings given to the Government. The sum of £500 in the Estimate was the share of the Imperial Government of his salary. The money was well expended in having such an officer on the spot. Since the Estimates had been prepared negotiations had been entered into for further leasing the line. The line, it would be remembered, broke down last year, and great difficulty was experienced in restoring its working condition. Having been constructed for deep water, it gave way when sunk in shallow water. In consequence of what had happened it was deemed desirable to enter 1312 into new arrangements, and lease the line for a period of forty years, the cable to be given up to the Government in as good working condition as when it was leased; the company taking the whole of the expenses and the receipts, and paying to the Government an interest at the rate of 3J per cent on £450,000, which was the sum the line had cost the Imperial and the Indian Governments. It was supposed that that arrangement would secure to the Government for the next forty years an income of between £15,000 and £16,000 per annum. The arrangement was a satisfactory one, and he believed if carried out it would be unnecessary to keep the superintendent at Malta.
§ SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he supposed it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make the communication between this country and India perfect in less than forty years.
§ MR. MOORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not made out a case for retaining the superintendent an hour longer than was necessary for sending a telegraphic message from here to Malta dismissing him.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (60.) £10,000, Agricultural Statistics, Great Britain.
§ (61.) £14,674, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Expenses from Civil Contingencies.
§ SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he wished to call attention to an item of £3,000 for robes, collars, badges, &c, for the Knights of the several orders, and intimated that he should on some future occasion call the attention of the House to this matter. The next item he saw had reference to the Tower of London. Within the Tower of London there was one of the smallest but, at the same time, one of the most interesting of churches, that of St. Peter ad vincula. Some of the most celebrated characters to be found in English history, many of whom had expiated their political offences upon the scaffold, were there interred. Any gentleman entering this church—which he believed was a parish church—would feel that the greatest desecration had been committed, and instead of its being most carefully preserved, it was very much neglected, and was filled up with the monuments of aldermen and lord mayors; respectable people, no doubt, but a reference, to Eng- 1313 lish history would have led one to suppose that more interest would have been taken in Anne Boleyn, the Duke of Monmouth, and other similar characters. Six or seven years ago he pointed out that something ought to be done in the way of improving this church, but as yet nothing had been done. A great deal of money had been very properly spent of late years on the Tower of London, and he thought a few hundreds in making this church—so renowned for its architectural beauty and historic associations—both useful and ornamental would not be objected to by the country.
§ MR. WYLDcalled attention to the charge of £1,456 17s. 5d., for "expenses incurred by the War Department in executing a fac simile of Doomsday Book by the photozincographic process," and asked why it had not been charged to the War Department. Referring to expenses in connection with British cemeteries at Varna and Scutari, he wished to know what the Government had done with regard to the preservation of the cemeteries of Sebastopol. The French Government had taken the necessary steps for preserving theirs from destruction.
§ MR. PEELsaid, that with regard to thefac simile of Doomsday Book, it was found that as fast as each copy was completed the sale repaid the expense; and it was thought the expenses, under the circumstances, ought to be charged to the civil contingencies. The cemeteries at Sebastopol had engaged the attention of the Government, and a considerable sum had been spent towards keeping them in a proper and becoming state. An officer had recently been appointed to take charge of the cemetery at Scutari.
§ MR. SCULLYremarked that all kinds of rubbish had been shot into these "miscellaneous expenses." A sum of £3,000 for robes, collars, badges, &c., for the knights of the several orders was a very large one for such a purpose, and there was an item of £401 for the purchase and conveyance of sheep presented to the Viceroy of Egypt.
§ MR. PEELsaid, that the charge for robes, collars, &c, must of course vary according to the number of appointments. It was larger this year than last because the appointments by Her Majesty had been more numerous. Formerly the knights paid for their own robes, &c., but a few years since it was decided that they should be no longer called upon to do so, 1314 but that their cost should be defrayed at the public expense.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.