§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £6,992, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses.
§ MR. W. JAMESsaid, a great many of the officers whose salaries were included in the Vote seemed to be purely ornamental. What were the duties of Ulster King-at-Arms, who was set down for £750? Who were the "Gentlemen-at-Large," and what were their duties? They received £128 each, and the Athlone Pursuivant of Arms £190. Some gentlemen might wish to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant as a badge of conquest, an excrescence of modern growth, originating in an age when there was great vulgarity of thought. Though it might be acceptable to some, Irish tastes was at variance with English common sense.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHreplied that the duties performed by Ulster King-at-Arms were similar to those of the College-of-Arms in London. The remuneration he received was less than the fees 1840 paid into his office, and the excess went to the Treasury. With reference to the Gentlemen-at-Large, the offices they filled were necessary to the dignity of the position held by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland had promised some information on the subject of the Queen's Plates, which were included in this Vote; and asked whether the new rules for the regulation of those in England would be applied to those of Ireland and Scotland? He had hoped that after what the right hon. Baronet said last year the money this year would have been applied to some more useful purpose.
MR. J. COWENremarked that these plates were given ostensibly to improve the breed of horses, and he did not know why there should not also be Votes for improving the breed of pigs and cattle. Indeed, he thought the money would be better bestowed for the latter purpose on agricultural shows, as certainly no improvement in horses resulted from these plates. The fact was that these prizes did not bring the best horses. Races, like everything else, had greatly changed in these days. The prizes given were larger and the distances run much shorter than formerly. There were 32 Queen's Plates in England, and it frequently happened that one horse won half of them. A year or two ago one horse won 17 out of the 32. In eight, nine, or ten cases, the plate was walked over for; and, on an average, no more than three horses ran for the remainder. The prizes, in short, were not large enough. Last year, at Newmarket, the three plates of £100 each were turned into one prize of £300, and the result was that nine horses competed for that race. At Newcastle and Carlisle, instead of a race at each place every year, it was now arranged that a race for £200 should take place at those towns in alternate years. Similar arrangements had been made between Liverpool and Manchester, and other towns. He would move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,562, the amount set down for Queen's Plates.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,430, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March
1841
1877, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Cowen.)
§ MR. STACPOOLEwished to see the new system now on trial in England tried also in Ireland. The Queen's Plates should be divided between the provinces. At present a regular "plater" was frequently sent over from England—one which had beaten the best English horses, and one, therefore, which nobody cared to run against. Such a system did nothing for the improvement of the breed of horses.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANthought that it would be a great improvement if, instead of giving so many of the Queen's Plates to the Curragh, they were distributed between the provinces; or, better still, if the prizes were increased and the number of races lessened. In that case they would have more competition, and improve the breed all over the country.
§ MR. MURPHYthought a better distribution of the money would be advisable. He would recommend his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle to be satisfied with having called attention to the Vote.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he gave an undertaking last year that it should be considered whether this money could be more usefully applied, either by the amalgamation of existing plates or otherwise. In pursuance of that promise, the Master of the Horse had been in communication with the Lord Lieutenant, in order to ascertain whether it would be possible to come to an arrangement for the redistribution of the plates given at present. The money was intended to serve two purposes, the improvement of the breed of horses, and contributing to the amusement of the people. As yet no definite plan had been decided upon; and there appeared, so far as he was aware, to be considerable objections to any change that had been proposed. He was afraid that the amalgamation of the plates into a far larger prize would increase the temptation to send over a few superior horses from England, who would carry off all the prizes and discourage the native breeders.
§ MR. RAMSAYexpressed his regret that the Chief Secretary for Ireland felt it his duty to ask the Committee to sanction the Vote. This money had been 1842 proved to be wasted; and, for his own part, he could not see how the Irish people could be either amused or enlightened by seeing two or three horses merely go over a course. What the Government ought to do was to bring forward some proposal to expend the money in improving the breeds of horses and all kinds of stock in which the Irish so much excelled.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the breeding of horses was a very important thing in Ireland, and he should be glad at the expenditure of this money if he thought it would improve the breed of the horses; but by universal testimony this particular application of the money did not attain that object. In Scotland of late years very great attention had been paid to the improvement of agricultural and carriage horses, and experience had shown that the offering of a prize of £100 or £150 formed a very great inducement for this class of horses to be brought forward, and it was always a condition of winning a prize that the horses should be retained in the district during the season. He thought something of the kind might be applied to Ireland.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKcould not understand why £1,500 a-year should be taken out of the pockets of the people to throw it away on objects which had been generally condemned as useless if not mischievous.
§ MR. COLLINShoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle would not press his Motion to a division, as the money was voted for a good purpose, and the Irish Members were unanimous in the opinion that the money was not wasted.
§ MR. MACDONALDobserved, that Irish horses came over to this country and took away the principal prizes, and therefore there was no necessity to send money there to improve the breed of horses.
§ MR. MUNTZthought it would be very ungenerous to refuse this money to the Irish, who loved fun and racing and horses. The English people loved Epsom and Ascot, and he did not see why the Irish should be precluded from their enjoyment.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Vote agreed to.
1843§ (2.) £27,530, Chief Secretary for Ireland Offices.
MR. SULLIVANasked for some information as to a new office that was mentioned in the Vote—that of the Assistant Under Secretary.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that the office had been created in the course of a re-organization, which had become necessary, but it really involved no extra charge.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKasked for an explanation of the duties of the director of the Veterinary department, who was paid £800 a-year, and his assistants and clerks.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Vote did not represent the entire staff of the Veterinary department in Ireland, but only those clerks under the direction of the Veterinary department in Dublin, and the sum paid to him was not a large sum compared with similar officers in England.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £460, Boundary Survey, Ireland.
§ (4.) £2,058, Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
§ (5.) £6,050, Public Record Office, Ireland.
§
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £28,675, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYcomplained that although the Act of Parliament required that there should be three Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, one of the Commissioners had ceased to receive salary, and an Assistant Commissioner was appointed without his proper rank and remuneration. The Office of Works was altogether under-manned, though there was no department of greater importance in Ireland. The Assistant Commissioner was moreover appointed in consequence of his knowledge of engineering, drainage, and waterworks; but he had been placed in the architect's department, where his special qualifications were not available.
MR. SULLIVANbelieved there never was a greater misnomer or "sham" than 1844 the Board of Works in Ireland, for it was a bureau which executed no great public works at all. It managed a loan office in a very narrow spirit, and through its fault important clauses of the Land Act had been rendered inoperative. Its other functions were to mend the broken panes in the Chief Secretary's office and in the Four Courts of Dublin, or, perhaps, to build police barracks. Some of its officers, the architect in particular, managed to pass their time by discussing the conduct of Ministers and hawking Petitions about the office, compelling the subordinates to sign them for political and partizan purposes. The duties of the loan department were so managed as to deter persons from borrowing, and 7½ per cent for the management of the fund was far too high a charge. He begged, therefore, to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £839, the amount of the architect's salary.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £27,836, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. Sullivan.)
§ MR. MUNTZasked why it was, if the Commissioners discharged no duties, a sum of £500 was charged for travelling expenses?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHthought there was much more force in the allegation of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), that the office was under-manned, than in that of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), who said that it had little or nothing to do. It had important duties to discharge; if it had erred at all in discharging them it had been rather in occasionally giving loans without sufficient security than in refusing them where they ought to have been granted. The Secretary to the Treasury would shortly bring in a Bill to "write off" a considerable number of loans advanced by the Board of Works which could not be recovered for the State. The charge that a superior officer of the Department had hawked about the office Petitions for signature by the clerks was entirely unfounded. The fact was, as he had previously stated, that a Petition was brought into the office by a 1845 private individual and shown to the architect, who chose, in the exercise of his discretion, to sign it, and when it was handed to the other clerks they did the same.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANobserved, that the Bill in reference to the Shannon had fallen through, chiefly in consequence of no appeal having been provided for the proprietors against the rates to be levied. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to take any steps with respect to the drainage of the Shannon and the Suck?
§ DR. WARDsaid, it was a great evil that a considerable portion of the government of Ireland was committed to Boards which were practically irresponsible. As an illustration, he might mention that a canal had been made through his own borough, but the keeping of it in repair was committed to irresponsible persons, and the consequence was that, being left without any protecting wall year after year, a large percentage of the population were in danger of being drowned.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid that the increase in travelling expenses was due to the increase of labour thrown on the Department, and nothing was passed but what was absolutely necessary. Some negotiations were going on with respect to the upper part of the Shannon, but they had not as yet been communicated to the Treasury.
§ In reply to Mr. RYLANDS,
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the items composing the charge of £5,209 for the architect's department had reference to the National Education Buildings, the Queen's Colleges, the naval and military Departments, Law Courts, the convict prisons, and other important public Departments.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the complaints of himself and the hon. Member for Louth, though apparently opposite, were easily reconciled. There were three Commissioners; they were not employed in looking after petty details in the repair of public and private offices; and their function was to consider in what direction material improvement could be carried out. He wished to know whether the Secretary of the Treasury or the Chief Secretary for Ireland intended to carry out the provisions 1846 of the Act of Parliament by appointing three Commissioners, so that the office, which was one of great importance, might be conducted with the proper amount of brains?
§ MR. COLLINScontended that as the Department was in no respect connected or under the control of the Irish Government the Vote ought to be an English and not an Irish one. If the office in question were brought under the control of the Government of Ireland, a great alteration for the better would be effected.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 123: Majority 45.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. MUNTZmoved to reduce the Vote by £500, on the ground that he was not satisfied with the explanation afforded in reference to the travelling expenses charged in the Estimate.
§
Motion made, and Question put,
That a sum, not exceeding £28,175, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. Muntz.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 123: Majority 42.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (7.) £18,237, Registrar General's Office, &c. Ireland.
§ (8.) £21,550, General Survey and Valuation, Ireland.
§ (9.) £78,000, Pauper Lunatics, Ireland.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANasked if any portion of the Vote would be applied to the maintenance of lunatics in workhouses as well as in district asylums?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that the question was one rather for the Chancellor of the Exchequer than himself, but he was not aware that any such intention existed. He should remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that all dangerous lunatics were provided for.
§ Vote agreed to.