THIRD READING. (Hansard, 18 May 1882)

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, the Bill came on rather unexpectedly the other night, and he was not present at the time. He did not wish to conclude with an obstructive Motion; but he rose to object to the Bill being read a third time until some explanation was given with respect to the grants to be made for the harbour. He noticed that £15,000 was to be given for the construction of the harbour. That was a much larger sum than was usually given for fishing harbours, and he should like to hear on what principle grants were given to harbours in general. £15,000 was to be given, in the first instance, as a free grant, and then £20,000 was to be given by way of loan. He very much doubted whether £35,000 would complete or be sufficient for the maintenance of the harbour; in fact, the Bill itself provided that £35,000 only was to be given at first. It was contemplated that a further sum of money might be given if £35,000 was not found sufficient. He did not think the district would be required to provide the further sum; if it was not, the duty would devolve upon the taxpayers of this country. On looking over the Papers, including the Report of the Engineers, which were lent to him by his hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, he was not satisfied as to the stability of the work proposed. For instance, it was shown in that Report that there had been silting up in a few days which it took six months to remedy. As he had previously said, he would not obstruct the Bill; his only reason for interposing between the House and the third reading was to obtain some explanation of the principles upon which grants were given to harbours. He also wanted to obtain some distinct pledge that when the £15,000 was given by way of gift, and the £20,000 was given upon the faith and security of the baronies in the neighbourhood, as was supposed to be the case, no further sum would be advanced until there was an undertak- 1049 ing on the part of the neighbouring baronies that they would pay the interest on the sum advanced. He hoped he would receive some assurance from the Government on this; otherwise, he should think it his duty to take the opinion of the House upon the question. He had been in some degree stimulated to take this course by the taunt indulged in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the Budget of the year. The right hon. Gentleman taunted Liberal Members with not looking more carefully after the Expenditure of the country, and now the Government were advocating an expenditure which, on the face of it, seemed excessive; £35,000 appeared to be an extravagant sum to give for what was only a second or third-rate fishing station, and he would now move that the Bill be read a third time on this day six months. He would not, however, press the Amendment to a division, if he received any satisfactory assurance that no further sum should be advanced until a binding agreement was made with the baronies of the neighbourhood.

§ MR. R. W. DUFF
said, he would also like to know on what principle this money was granted? There was no principle whatever contained in this Bill; they were simply asked to vote money from the Imperial Funds for improving an Irish harbour. If the Government would make a grant in accordance with the provisions of previous Acts—namely, at a low rate of interest, he would be glad to support them; but if they were about to advance money for an Irish harbour on a totally different footing, he would like to know why grants had been refused for harbours in Scotland? Claims had been made in the case of Scotch harbours; and, although the security was the very best, grants had been refused. He agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), and hoped that, before they assented to the third reading, they would have some explanation of the policy the Government intended to adopt in this instance.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, he approached the subject, as he approached all similar questions, with the greatest possible jealousy, because he looked with great anxiety at the application of a principle of applying public money in aid of local works of any kind. He looked upon the present as a most exceptional and special case, and, therefore, he would not do what he might otherwise be tempted to do—indulge in an examination of the relative circumstances of England, Scotland, and Ireland, in order to show what course ought to be adopted in respect of each. With reference to the application made by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he would call attention to the 3rd clause of the Bill which said— If the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury (in this Act referred to as the Treasury) are satisfied with the security offered by the justices and associated cesspayers of the three baronies, or of any of them at such meeting, they may authorize the Board to carry this Act into effect, and to advance out of the moneys placed in their hands by Parliament the sum of fifteen thousand pounds by way of grant, and the sum of twenty thousand pounds by way of loan, and may by order declare the said baronies, or some or one of them, to be charged with the payment of the said sum of twenty thousand pounds, and interest. He would give the assurance that, until the Commissioners of the Treasury were satisfied with the security, the money should not be advanced.

§ MR. M'COAN
said, he listened to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) with some surprise, seeing that the condition imposed by Clause 3, to which the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had just called attention, completely met the objection he had stated. Clause 3 made it absolutely necessary that the loan to be made should be fully guaranteed in advance by the baronies. That being so, the difficulty of the hon. Member for Swansea was completely met. Apart from that, the hon. Gentleman seemed to have a rather imperfect notion of the strength of the claim of Arklow upon the generous consideration of the House. The hon. Member had said that Arklow was only a second or third-rate fishing station; but, in point of fact, it was one of the chief fishing harbours on the Eastern Coast of Ireland. That it was an important fishing-ground was proved by the fact that it was largely frequented by English boats, who went there to poach on waters 1051 which did not belong to them. The fishing industry of the port was thus seriously interfered with by the hon. Gentleman's own constituents, the fishermen of Swansea. Arklow had a population of nearly 5,000 persons, most of whom depended upon the fishing industry for their livelihood. In recent years, however, these poor people had been kept down to almost starvation point by the condition of the harbour. The Engineers of the Board of Works had carefully examined the state of the work, and had reported that it could be effectively re-constructed for the estimated sum of £30,000. If there should be any extra expenditure beyond that, the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would see from the Bill that sufficient security was to be given for it by the ratepayers of Arklow. The Treasury, therefore, would have ample security for any further sum they might be required to advance. It had been said that there was something of jobbery in this matter; but in his experience he had never come across a case which was freer from any suspicion of the kind. £5,000 were to be paid to the Mining Company for the surrender of their rights, a sum which, under the circumstances, was very moderate. They had spent some £20,000 on the harbour; but the works had been swept away, and the mouth of the port closed up. Still, they had these rights; and, although they were not making sixpence a-year from them, they could not be expected to surrender them without some compensation. It had now been agreed that they should receive this sum of £5,000, to which the Government had added a further loan of £15,000 on ample baronial security, and a free grant of a like amount. He, therefore, thought the House should accept the Bill.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he was satisfied with the assurance of the hon. Member.

§ MR. ARTHUR PEASE
said, he was glad the hon. Member had drawn attention to this matter, because it showed a clear partiality towards Irish harbours. The only explanation given was that the harbour was in a bad state, and the fishing industry was depressed. There were many harbours in a bad state, and the fishing industry depressed, and in regard to which a claim might be made for Government help, because they were 1052 harbours which were approved of by the Government, and might be made valuable for the protection of life, as well as for the encouragement of fishing industries. He hoped that if the Bill was read a third time, some Members who were connected with English harbours might be able to look upon it as a precedent.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, it might be imagined, from what the hon. Member had said, that Ireland was exceptionally favoured in the matter of harbours. But, as compared with English and Scotch harbours, they occupied by no means a favourable position; and the Primo Minister was perfectly right in saying that when the Liberals were in Office they were singularly remiss in considering the Estimates, otherwise they would have observed that year after year charges appeared on the English Estimates which were indefensible. He invited the attention of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) to the considerable sum voted every year for Harwich Harbour to enable the same sum to be paid back to the Government. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. R. W. Duff), who was so susceptible as to the amount granted to a harbour which was in a bad state, was oblivious of the fact that some time ago a considerable grant was made to some harbours in Scotland; and then he had no difficulty as to the principle of such grants. He would not ask why the Government granted so much public aid to the Scotch harbours; but when those grants were challenged by English Members, they were defended by Irish Members.