§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £180,546, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and for the erection of Fishery Piers, and the Maintenance of certain Parks, Harbours, and Navigations.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORpointed out that this Vote included an item which had appeared on the Estimates for many years, and which item was distinctly against the recommendations of certain Royal Commissioners. He should, therefore, propose to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum which the Royal Commissioners declared to be improper. The item he referred to was that which was charged for the maintenance of the Ulster Canal, and which amounted to £1,289. A Royal Commission reported last year that they did not think there was any probability that the Canal would justify any immediate outlay of public money upon it to put it into repair, and they expressed a decided opinion that no more public money should be spent upon it. They recommended that the Canal, with all the property attached to it, should be offered for sale to the public. Under these circumstances, he desired to move the reduction of the Vote. Then, there was another sum of £6,000 granted in aid of works of navigation. With regard to that navigation, the same Commission 1345 reported that the Lough Erne Navigation Commissioners had, under their Act of 1880, certain powers in Lough Erne to improve and clear the channel, and to maintain and repair the locks in the Ulster and Ballyconnel Canal, which communicated with the Ulster Canal by the Lough Erne navigation. If this navigation were likely to be of any use, it would, perhaps, be worth the while of the Government to spend this £6,000 to complete the Lough Erne Navigation Works; but the same Royal Commission to which he had already referred stated that the Ballyconnel Canal, like the Ulster Canal, was quite unworthy of any support. The receipts in 1880 were nil, and the annual expenditure on the lock-keeper's account was about £80. Between Belfast on the one hand, and the Shannon River on the other, there were these two links of water communicating with each other—the Ulster Canal, and the Ballyconnel and Ballinmore Canal. Both wore useless; and the Royal Commission had advised that both of them should be discontinued, at any rate, so far as any expenditure of public money was concerned. The Lough Erne navigation was a link between the two Canals; and if the Canals on both sides were not worthy of support, it was useless to spend money in maintaining the intermediate link. He therefore proposed to further reduce the Vote by the sum of £6,000, making altogether a reduction of £7,289.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £173,257, "be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and for the erection of Fishery Piers, and the Maintenance of certain Parks, Harbours, and Navigations."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
§ MR. BIGGARdesired to know whether the Government wished this to go to a division without any explanation at all? Why was all this money to be badly spent, or, worse than badly spent, when the expenditure could be done without altogether? It was of no use to the public; and instead of spending a lot of money in keeping these Canals in navigable order, when there was no profit to be derived from them, it would be very much better to drain the district. If a 1346 Canal required to get a subsidy from the British Parliament every year, and did not earn sufficient tolls to pay for keeping itself in order, no more conclusive evidence could be afforded, in his opinion, to show that it was not required, and, indeed, that it was in a worse position than if it were simply not required, because it was really in the way. The Ulster Canal should be exceedingly well situated. It ran into Belfast, and had a very good harbour, and it went to a number of manufacturing towns. But, in spite of that fact, the principal part of the traffic of the district was taken by the railway, and there was no use for the Canal at all. Everybody sent by railway when they could, and, except for coals and other things, which were taken at the very lowest rate of freight, there was no employment for these Canals at all. He was firmly of opinion that the most judicious thing to do would be to sell the land out of which the Canals were formed, and allow of drainage for the benefit of the district.
§ MR. BLAKEsaid, he quite agreed with the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken, that the work of these two Canals had considerably diminished, and it was not surprising, considering that they had railways in competition with them. But, at the same time, he had been officially connected with the district for 10 years, and he knew that the Canals were of enormous convenience to a large number of the people there. As the hon. Member for Cavan had said, coals and other things were taken by them. But he (Mr. Blake) could add that the people living in small towns and the peasantry in many ways were most greatly benefited by them. The expenditure of this £7,000 was of very considerable benefit in many ways; and to drain the Canals and turn them to agricultural purposes would be a most preposterous idea. One good service that the Canals performed was to check exorbitant railway rates. He had some knowledge on this point, and he believed that the railways in that part of the country would be exceedingly glad if some of these Canals were discontinued, as it would afford them the opportunity which they very much wished to obtain of raising the rates on coals and other articles that could now be carried by canal. In the interests of the people of the North of Ireland who used these 1347 Canals he should feel bound to vote against the Amendment.
§ MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he had had no idea that the reduction of the Vote was to be moved, or, having taken the trouble to copy out the plans, he would have brought them with him and offered a few words of explanation. But he trusted the Committee would not accept the Amendment, and any information which he had it in his power to give he would defer to another time. However, he might say this much—that he believed there was a very strong feeling in favour of the maintenance and continuance of the Ulster Canal, and so strong was that feeling that a deputation waited on the Lord Lieutenant, not very long ago, in order to obtain His Excellency's consent to improvements upon the Canal. The subject of the Fisheries and of Irish Railways was continually being brought before the House; and one of the great arguments used was that there was not sufficient traffic to cause competitive lines to be made, and that, therefore, those lines which were in existence had an absolute monopoly of the traffic. That monopoly was modified to a certain extent by the old water-ways. He freely admitted that the produce taken over the Canals and Railways was largely agricultural produce; but there was an immense amount of heavy traffic taken over the Canals, and over the Ulster Canal, and he thought the Committee should pause considerably before they consented to reduce the Vote, especially in the face of the recent deputation to Earl Spencer.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the observations of the hon. Member who had spoken would always be listened to by the Government with very great sympathy on these points; but certainly nothing would be more unjustifiable than keeping up means of communication when they did not pay their way. He said that quite apart from the recommendations of the Royal Commission. No doubt, as a matter of principle, such things should not be maintained; but the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was probably aware that the Government had not allowed the Report of the Royal Commission to lie entirely idle. They had issued advertisements, and wanted to get rid of the Canal as far as possible, if anybody would undertake to relieve 1348 them of it; but as yet they had received no response. They were still determined, however, to get rid of the Canal, if possible. He entirely assented to the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), that if a Canal did not pay its way it was not worth keeping up, notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) as to the action of the Canal in keeping down the power of the railways to make excessive charges. On that point they must look to the action of the Railway Commissioners for keeping the rates for goods traffic at a proper scale, and they must not trust to the uncertain and costly method suggested for keeping down outrageous charges. Under these circumstances, he thought the hon. Member for King's County would see that the Treasury were so far with him with respect to the Ulster Canal that he need not press his Amendment. As to the other matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the Lough Erne navigation—a considerable amount of money had already been expended, and a considerable amount of work done; and the position of affairs now was such that he would ask whether it was advisable to go on, or to leave the works half-finished? He thought it would be better to go on with thorn, if only for the purpose of improving the value of the Ulster Canal. If they sold it at all they must sell it in something like working order, and the improvement in that link in the navigation would make the property more valuable.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he did not know in what way hon. Members had arrived at their conclusions as to the proposed expenditure; but it might be possible to tread inadvertedly on very dangerous ground. For his part, far from encouraging the Treasury to give up unfinished works, he would urge them the other way. The fact was, that the Treasury never did complete the works they undertook in the matter of the Canal and River navigation of Ireland, and the consequence was that that navigation was a disgrace to the country. The reason for this was that at a time of enthusiasm the Treasury, through the Board of Works, undertook to make these communications; but they never finished them, and the Canals which had been referred to in this discussion 1349 were, without exception, the most ludicrous and discreditable pieces of work ever done by any Government or any private individual. If anybody would read the Evidence as to the Ballinmore Canal taken before a Committee some years ago he would learn the way in which the Board of Works performed its operations. He trusted that his hon. Friends would do what they could to compel the Treasury to complete the works, which had never yet been completed; but as to reducing the means of communication between one part of Ireland and another, it seemed to him perfectly amazing that any Irish Member should propose it. Ireland was unprosperous in a very considerable measure because there was no possibility of getting from one end of it to the other. Nature had endowed Ireland with the most magnificent water communication that could possibly exist; and it was only the folly of man that had not married those rivers to each other. He hoped hon. Gentleman would assist the Secretary to the Treasury in doing what was wanted, and making the system complete.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not find any fault with what had been said by the hon. Member for County Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) or by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Richardson); but one of these hon. Gentlemen lived in the immediate neighbourhood of Lough Erne, and knew a great deal about it, and, as far as he (Mr. Biggar) could gather, that hon. Gentleman was unprepared to make the smallest defence of the present arrangement. He (Mr. Biggar) knew very well that recently a deputation of busy-bodies, representing the Town Commissioners and so on, went to the Treasury with the modest proposal to ask for a loan of £10,000, on the security of property for which the Government had to pay £100 a-year at present, merely to keep it in working order. That was a sample of the deputations that went about on such matters. There was one thing that he never had done, and never would do, and that was to advocate the expenditure of public money where he thought it would be all thrown away. He did not believe in an expenditure which would be unproductive. No doubt, it was desirable to have communication; but what was communication worth when it could obtain no traffic except coals? 1350 Coals formed a very small item in the income of a Railway Company, and would hardly have an appreciable effect in raising or reducing the rates and fares which that Railway Company would receive. But these people were all going in for spending public money. The hon. Member for King's County had referred to the Ballinamore Canal. It had no traffic, because the Government in Ireland had made such a blunder in constructing the bridges that it was impossible for any boat to go under them. As Ballinamore was in County Leitrim, and Ballyconnel was in County Cavan, he (Mr. Biggar) might be supposed to have an interest in the expenditure of money there; but he had not the conscience to support the expenditure proposed in this case. The Canal had on its line Lisburn, Lurgan, and Portadown—three of the best towns, outside Belfast, in the North of Ireland. But, in spite of that, the Canal could not pay its expenses; and he did not see any justification which entitled hon. Members to come to that House and advocate the expenditure of public money upon Canals which did not get any traffic, and could not pay their expenses. As soon as anyone was willing to take these Canals for a nominal sum, it would be quite right to part with them. As to the Lough Erne navigation, he did not live in the neighbourhood, and did not know the details; but he had a fair idea that there was no amount of traffic to justify the expense proposed. It was a district which had no manufactures, and really he did not see what was to be done there at all. There was a little traffic in coal; but after Portadown it would be a worse job than the Ulster Canal, because if a Canal did not pay where there was a large seaport at one end and three manufacturing towns connected within 20 miles, he did not see how it could be got to pay where there were no towns at all.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was opposed to unproductive expenditure, and he did not see any justification for a Member, of the Government, or for a private Irish Member to advocate a useless and wanton waste of public money, such as was proposed in this case. They were absolutely asked to give away £7,000 for a purpose which they knew was of no use. These Canals were part of a system running between 1351 Lough Neah and the River Shannon, and the object was to establish communication between Belfast at the one end and Limerick and the Shannon at the other. He went the other day to see the worth of the traffic in that direction. On Wednesday in the week before last he went from Athlone to Lough Erne, and in that 45 miles he saw one small boat going in one direction, and nothing at all in the other; and that small boat contained a number of empty beer barrels, a few sacks of bobbins going to some mills, two or three coils of iron wire, and half-a-dozen carboys of liquor. Was it not preposterous that the navigation for such traffic should be regarded as justifying such an enormous expenditure? In order to maintain the navigation on that level, 10,000 acres were flooded, and the damage done in a single week by floods would cost a great deal more than all these Canals would realize. The low-lying lands of Northern Tipperary were flooded by the Shannon, and the poor had their crops carried away. Only last winter he was afraid to say how many thousands of persons between Lough Erne and Athlone were obliged to leave their houses altogether. Much of the property was ruined, and the whole country was one vast sheet of water, because the River Shannon was not allowed to do the proper duty of a river, which consisted in carrying certain waters off to the sea, but the navigation level was kept up in the interests of these wretched Canals. Sir John MacNeil reported, in 1861, that the only plan he could suggest by which any return could be obtained at all was to take off the lock-gates and drain the Canal, converting the slopes into grass land that could be let for grazing, and the rest into tillage. On the Ballyconnel Canal there was no traffic whatsoever; it never was navigable at all—never put into working order. It was alleged that the bridges were badly designed and badly made; but nothing was done to improve them, or even to keep them in repair. When it was proposed to support such a system by public money—he did not care whether in Ireland, England, or Scotland—such an expenditure should be put a stop to. One of the strongest Commissions ever appointed—every Member a competent man—had unanimously reported against the Ulster Canal, Lieutenant General 1352 Dickens only dissenting from some part of the Report; and he (Mr. O'Connor) would ask the Government how long they proposed to go on with this expenditure, and what they hoped, to gain by voting this £7,000? They would certainly not add to the market value of the Canal, for every single pound they spent now could be equally well spent by private adventurers, or private persons, if they chose to buy the property. The Government could not think of establishing any internal navigation which would pay; and if the money were laid out at all, it should come out of the pockets of the private persons, whom the Government fancied were disposed to take the property off their hands.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he had some knowledge of the Ulster Canal. He was a Director of a Company which, for 10 or 12 years, was obliged to pay the Government £1,000 a-year rent, and spent close on £400 or £500 a-year in repairs; and when the lease fortunately expired—for they had desired the Treasury for half-a-dozen years to accept the surrender of their lease—they were obliged to put the Canal in proper order at an expense of £700 or £800. During the experience they had, working in connection with the Dundalk Steam Packet Company, their receipts were absolutely nil—they did not cover the expenses of the lock-keepers. He was on the Committee of Investigation, and for five days in wet weather he trudged along the Canal from one end to the other; and he must say that a more hopeless undertaking to put into proper order, or to endeavour to get money back from, he never went over. He had always had a high respect for Sir John MacNeil's capabilities as an engineer and his high acquirements, and Sir John never gave a sounder opinion than that which had just been read, that the only way to make the Canal pay would be drain it and sell it to the neighbouring proprietors; then there would be some chance of making something out of it. He (Mr. Callan) did not know the Ballyconnel and Ballinamore Canal; but he did know something of Limerick, and anyone who knew anything of the River Shannon must be aware that there was not a week in autumn in the best year that passed that more injury was not done to the crops by the sudden floodings of the Shannon than could ever be 1353 recovered in a century by the maintenance of the navigation of the Shannon. He therefore trusted the Committee would accept this Amendment, and thus impress on the Treasury the necessity of giving up the navigation of the Shannon, so far as it interfered with the proper drainage of the Suck and the other tributary rivers which flowed into the Shannon from King's County, County Galway, and Rosscommon.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he had heard many discussions in that House on these subjects; but this was the first time he had ever heard such a discussion as the present. The navigation of these Canals and Rivers in Ireland was intended to form a water-way from Belfast and the North of Ireland to Limerick. The hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had spoken of the navigation of the Shannon; but that had nothing whatever to do with this Canal, except in that way. The reason why this magnificent water way—as it would be if the works were properly finished—had been of no use was that the Canals had never been finished. The Ulster Canal had had much money spent on it, but it was never made navigable; and, consequently, there was a hiatus between the navigation of one district and another. The Treasury had, within the last two years, after an enormous amount of abuse had been lavished upon them, spent a large sum of money in putting sluices into the weirs which used to cause the floods, and those sluices would prevent the floods for the future; and such floods as did occur used to take place upon lands that formerly were never cultivated at all. For years endeavours had been made to get the Treasury to put sluices into the solid stone walls, so as to allow the surplus waters to run off and prevent the extensive floods; and now the works were near completion, he believed.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, they were practically finished now.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it remained, then, to be seen whether the sluices would produce the good effect expected. As to the proposal to drain the Canals and let out the land for grazing, that was the most astonishing proposal he had ever heard in that House. He hoped that, far from abandoning these works, the Government 1354 would make up their minds to complete the navigation from one end of Ireland to the other throughout the magnificent rivers which Providence had endowed Ireland with.
§ MR. MOLLOYasked upon what terms the Canal was to be offered for sale, and what inducements had been given to make an offer for it? It was connected with another sheet of water by certain works, and he should certainly like to know on what terms it had been offered, and whether it had been offered as a growing concern, or simply as property to be cultivated—that was to say, that it was not to be used as a Canal again, but converted into land for the purpose of cultivating and growing crops? In regard to what his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) said, his hon. Friend seemed to forget that these demands he spoke of were made when there were no railways, and that as soon as railways were constructed the Canals became useless. There were no boats running upon them at all now, and the Canals themselves were of very little service to anybody. They were simply a means of providing for the swamping of the surrounding district. Whatever value there might be, according to the statement of the hon. Member for Galway, in these Canals as regarded the means of transit, it was far more than counterbalanced by the annual injury occasioned by the flooding of the Canal.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he thought the time was particularly ill-chosen for proposing to sell these Canals, which might possibly be made ultimately a useful means of communication, when the House had had before it for some time the Report of the Committee on Railway Rates and Fares making special recommendations in regard to the Railways and Canals of Ireland. He understood that the Report of that Committee was to be dealt with by legislation next Session; and he was of opinion that Members representing Irish constituencies would do much better to press upon the Government the importance of carrying out the recommendations of that Committee, leaving the inland navigation of Ireland, until next Session at all events, in its present condition, than to urge the Committee to effect an apparent economy at present which might destroy the hope for ever afterwards of 1355 making a complete system of inland navigation. Apart from that consideration, of course hon. Members on this side of the Channel could have no interest in continuing any expenditure that was supposed to be unnecessary. In reference to what the Secretary to the Treasury said about offering these Canals for sale, he thought it was most desirable, if possible, to prevent any of the Canals from falling into the hands of the Railway Companies. Recommendations to that effect had been made by the Committee on Railway Rates and Pares, and by the Royal Commission which sat some time ago, and whose attention was specially directed to that question. He hoped, considering the nature of these recommendations, to receive some assurance from the Government that, whatever was done in regard to selling these Canals, precautions would be taken to prevent the water communications in Ireland from falling into the hands of the Railway Companies.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he was much obliged to hon. Members for having told the Committee the truth about these matters. The Committee had been informed that there was no trade upon these Canals; and, in that case, what was the use of insisting upon the Government spending money upon them? They knew the reason why there was no trade. Railways were coming into operation, and, of course, they tended to throw Canals out, in the same manner as the introduction of steam displaced the old stage-coaches. Then, why insist upon the Government spending money upon Canals, and express astonishment because they felt it their duty to tell the truth? If the matter went to a division, he should certainly vote against the grant.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he knew something about this Canal question in the North of Ireland. The Royal Commission which inquired into the whole subject of the Canals reported last year. Their Report was to the effect that the Ulster Canal should be offered for sale, and should be no longer a charge upon the taxes of the country. It also recommended that the navigation of the Lower Bann should be abandoned as useless in the interests of trade and commerce. The taxpayers of the Three Kingdoms were paying £1,200 a-year for keeping 1356 open the Ulster navigation, and the entire sum derived from the tolls amounted to some £60 or £70 a-year. In regard to the Lower Bann navigation, matters wore still worse. The maintenance of the navigation cost £1,400 a-year, and it was paid by the taxpayers of a few baronies in Counties Derry and Antrim. But the unfortunate farmers of these counties, in addition to the expenditure they were called upon to bear, had their land submerged for three or four months every year, owing to the useless navigation works that were kept up. He was very much surprised that this Vote was proposed again. It was at the instigation of the Treasury that the Royal Commission was appointed; they had presented their Report; and he could not understand the proposal to vote this sum of money in keeping open the navigation, especially as it was destroying very valuable land, and sweeping away the crops in harvest time. He hoped the Treasury would consider again the propriety of imposing this large tax upon the country; and if the matter were carried to a division, he should vote against it.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was much astonished at the language used by the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson). The hon. Member knew perfectly well that the Government intended to carry out the Report of the Commission, of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member. They had not shown any backwardness whatever; but they had put advertisements in the papers offering the Ulster Canal for sale. They did not shrink in the slightest degree from carrying out the Report of the Commission.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) manfully come forward to corroborate what he (Mr. Biggar) believed to be the real facts of the case. So far as the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) were concerned, he would never suspect the hon. Gentleman of stating anything but what he believed really to be correct. At the same time, he could not imagine how any man who knew anything of Ireland could say that these Canals in connection with the Shannon, even if in navigable order, would be of any value to the people of Limerick and 1357 the West of Ireland. At present the railroads carried all the traffic to the seaport towns in the West of Ireland. All the butter, live stock, and so on, was unsuited altogether for Canal traffic, and probably it was only such articles as coals and other heavy materials that found their way upon the Canals. Certainly the entire traffic was very small in amount altogether, So far as the Ulster Canal was concerned, it was of no service whatever, except to a few linen factories, and some flax-spinning mills. It appeared, from the Report which he held in his hand, that for five years, ending March 1880, the total amount of tolls received from the Ulster Canal only averaged £55 per annum. Well, for the purpose of keeping the Canal open, the Committee was called upon to pay a sum of £1,200 a-year. He strongly objected to the waste of public money involved in this Vote. Before the railway was constructed an old gentleman was in possession of the Canal, and managed to make a good living out of it; but he got very old and died, and railways having been established the Canal had to be supported by public money. Of course, before the railways were constructed there was some kind of traffic upon the Canal; but now the cultivation of the slopes of the Canal was of far more importance than the Canal itself, and brought in an income of about £180 a-year, while the Canal only produced £55 a-year, although for keeping it in order the Committee were asked to vote £1,200. He strongly protested against the Vote, and he thought that the Government ought to withdraw it.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 74: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 110.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he should like to ask for some information from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury in relation to the expenditure upon Kingstown and other Harbours. He saw that the amount expended upon harbours was £9,361, of which £7,170 was expended on the pay of the staff. The amount of materials used by the workmen in connection with the staff was only £1,400, 1358 which seemed considerably out of proportion to the cost of the staff itself. He found that the staff consisted of as many as 120 permanent officials, 42 of them being permanent labourers; but, nevertheless, there was a sum charged of £1,038 for labour hired by the job as well. He should like to know if there was any means of ascertaining what the earnings of these harbours were, because the total extra receipts from all the harbours, including Donnaghadee, amounted to £2,300? The expenditure of £9,361 was the expenditure of the harbour staff of 102 persons, and in addition to the sum paid for hired labour amounted to £1,038, while the extra receipts only reached £2,300. He should be glad if the Secretary to the Treasury could give the Committee any explanation of the necessity for this large amount of expenditure in these harbours, which, so far as he was aware, was considerably out of proportion to the commercial results of maintaining other harbours. He would suggest to his hon. Friend that it might be more convenient, in future, if the extra receipts of each of these harbours was published as against the cost of the harbour, so as to show what each had really earned.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he thought that the whole of the Vote should undergo re-arrangement and careful supervision before it was again presented to the House. He strongly objected to the manner in which so many different things were lumped together in the Vote, so as to make it impossible for any Member to analyze the component parts of the Estimate. The current annual expenditure should be divided into that which provided for salaries, for repairs, and for new works. He hoped that the request which the hon. Baronet opposite had made, and which he (Sir George Balfour) repeated, would be attended to in future.
§ MR. MOLLOYpointed out that the Vote of £180,546 included a variety of items, such as the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of Public Buildings connected with the Private Secretary's Department, the Chief Secretary's Lodge and Gardens, the Under Secretary's Lodge, and other items. By way of entering a protest against the Vote he would move that it be reduced by the sum of £16,000,
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £164,546, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and for the erection of Fishery Piers, and the Maintenance of certain Parks, Harbours, and Navigations."—(Mr. Molloy.)
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked what items the reduction represented?
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, that in order to save trouble he had moved the reduction of the Vote "try a specific sum—namely, £16,000. He had taken that course in order to save the Chairman the trouble of calculating what particular items the reduction would cover.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) had kindly explained that in moving the reduction of the Vote he did so as a matter of principle, and not for financial grounds. He understood the hon. Gentleman to object to the expenditure proposed in the Estimate upon the repairs of certain Public Offices in Ireland. The hon. Member could not expect him to enter into that question at that moment; but his attention having been called to the financial aspect of the question, he was bound to say that the charge for maintaining Official Residences and State Departments did appear to be too excessive, and he would promise to make an inquiry into the matter, in order to see whether some more economical system might not be introduced. The amount, certainly, did appear to trench upon the excessive. The hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had called his attention to the expenditure upon certain harbours in Ireland. He thought it would be a decided improvement that the extra receipts on account of each harbour should be given. The staff at Kingstown Harbour appeared very large, and he would inquire into the matter.
§ MR. BIGGARasked if the Secretary to the Treasury could give any information as to the items included in this Vote? Of course, he did not wish the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee exactly what each item was; but could he give an estimate or guess upon the matter?
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was afraid that any estimate would be fallacious; and it would be only deluding the Committee and the hon. Member if he attempted to enter into details.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the explanation he had given in regard to the Vote. He was very anxious to reduce the expenditure, and he did not think that anything less than a total reduction would have any effect.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was glad that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had now got himself well under weigh in the work of his new Office, and had found time to investigate some of the charges in the Estimates for services in Ireland. He felt persuaded that if the hon. Gentleman extended his investigations he would find a very considerable number of things connected with the Public Offices in Ireland which might be similarly reduced. He would not push the inquiry in regard to the reduction which the hon. Gentleman proposed to make in the State and Official Residences in Ireland; but he would ask him, when he supplied information in regard to Kingstown Harbour, to furnish similar information in regard to the other harbours—not only those mentioned in this Vote, but also the harbours of England mentioned in the earlier Votes, such as Holyhead and other harbours, in connection with which there were any Votes of public money.
MR. ARCHDALEremarked, that it was an extraordinary thing that hon. Members from Ireland, who complained that their country did not get sufficient grants from Parliament, should now oppose a Vote for spending money in Ireland.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he happened to know, having sat on the Committee which took into consideration the expenses of the Irish Official Departments, the position in which this question stood. The Lord Lieutenant had to reside in Dublin Castle during a portion of the year, and he had also a house in the country, in which he resided for another part of the year. He knew very well what had been the practice for a long time past when the Lord Lieutenant changed his residence from one house to the other. The furniture was always removed from the one residence to the other; and what greater economy could 1361 there be than the removal of the furniture in carts from one place to the other when a change of residence took place? He thought that afforded good evidence that the Vote for Furniture put down in the Estimates was not an excessive one; and he felt convinced that, if the matter were looked into, it would be found that if they desired to keep up an Imperial Establishment in Dublin at all, the Vote proposed to the Committee was not by any means excessive. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) to object to the keeping up of any Imperial Establishment in Ireland at all.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, he objected to the retention of the Lord Lieutenant.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he thought the Lord Lieutenant would be kept up, and the Imperial Establishments which now existed in Ireland would be retained, in spite of the opposition of hon. Members opposite.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought that hon. Members were justified in calling attention to the expenditure incurred in the removal of the furniture. He remembered, when he was at the Treasury, that an application was made to him to sanction the expenditure of a sum of money in new furniture on the ground that the expense of removing it was a very costly operation, and justified additional expenditure in new furniture.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he had no wish to prolong the discussion; but he objected to the lumping of sums for the Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary's Lodge, the Harbours, State Apartments, Public Buildings, and Fishery Piers in one Vote. All these sums in the present instance were put together in the most unintelligible manner.
§ MR. COURTNEYremarked, that they were included in one Vote.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, no doubt, they were in one Vote; but it would be better for the public to know clearly and distinctly what they were spending; and, unless each item was given in detail, they would never be able to know where they were. He believed that formerly these items were given in separate Votes. [Mr. COURTNEY: No; never.] He thought the Committee ought not to be called upon to discuss these separate questions in the same Vote without 1362 having fuller information than they now possessed.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. Member for Fermanagh (Mr. Archdale) had commented upon the fact that Irish Members were opposing a Vote for spending money in Ireland. He (Mr. Biggar) strongly objected to the useless and senseless outlay of money in Ireland, and believed that such expenditure was calculated to do great mischief. He had often heard applications made for expenditure upon reproductive works, which he considered to be perfectly legitimate and desirable, and complaints were frequently made of the stinginess of the Government in not acceding to such applications. There was a great difference in being stingy in regard to things that were desirable and in incurring expenditure for things that were unreasonable and uncalled for. He thought they had had an illustration of that in the discussion which had just taken place upon the Canals. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) supported an unnecessary expenditure in that direction, although it was proved to demonstration that the Canals would never pay for the outlay incurred upon them. It was because money was so spent in Ireland to gratify the cormorants who wished to limit the Public Expenditure, that Irish Members were told no money was available when they asked for it for really useful and reproductive works, such as grants in aid of the Irish Fisheries. He, for one, never grudged the expenditure of money for reproductive purposes; but it was a very different thing to throw it away upon useless expenditure.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 59: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 111.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to put a question to the Postmaster General in reference to the new post office at Belfast. It was proposed to spend £3,000 next year upon the new post office. He did not wish to criticize the proposal, but he asked for information in regard to it. Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman told them that the post office which at present existed was supposed to be very insufficient. He could quite imagine that, because since the office 1363 was originally built the work of the post office had been very much increased. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that the post office and the Customs-house were in the same block of buildings, and stood in an open square, to which there was easy excess from all sides. Whether that was the best way of providing public buildings of this kind he did not know; but the present building was a long way from any other building, and there was, consequently, very little danger or risk from fire. He believed that the new post office would not, from that point of view, be as favourably situated; but it would be, he believed, bounded, at least on one side, by other buildings, or immediately adjoining other buildings, with only a very narrow street between, and if a fire took place in that street the post office would be placed in very considerable danger. In addition, the present building had a wide open space around it, which was very convenient for those who had to pass to and fro, and for the reception and delivery of the mail bags. He did not know whether the front of the new building would be in a wide street or not, or what sort of provision would be made for the mail carts and the removal of the mails? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would be able to give some information to the Committee.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would gladly accede to the request of the hon. Member. The subject had been carefully looked into, and he need scarcely say that neither the Post Office nor the Treasury ever showed any undue inclination to move a post office, unless such a course was shown to be absolutely necessary. It had been reported to the Government that the present post office at Belfast was insufficient for the remarkable growth of business in that, town. It had also been represented to the Government that the commercial centre of the town had shifted, and that, although the present site might have been advantageous some years ago, it was not so well suited to the commercial requirements of Belfast as the site of the new post office. It was further away from what was now regarded as the commercial centre of the town. Now the post office was to be erected in a new street which had lately been made 1364 in Belfast. Pains had been taken to ascertain the wishes of the commercial community in Belfast. Although it was not possible to satisfy everyone, as far as he could judge the new office would afford far greater accommodation than the old office, and to the majority of the people of Belfast it would be far more convenient.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had said nothing in regard to the risk from fire. Would the new building stand in an open space, or would it adjoin other buildings?
§ MR.FAWCETTreplied, that that point had also been carefully considered, and he did not think there would be any risk from fire. He could not say confidently whether the new building would be separated on all sides; but he knew that it was on some sides. That objection had been carefully considered, and what they had in view was the comparative advantages and disadvantages. After careful consideration of all the sites that were suggested, the Post Office authorities came to the conclusion that this was the most convenient situation that could be found, and, so far as they knew, there had been no complaint as to their decision.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, he wished to put a question to the Postmaster General as to the post office at Ennis. He should feel glad if the right hon. Gentleman would institute an inquiry in regard to the adequacy of the accommodation afforded by the post office in that town, and either take steps to have a new post office constructed or the present one enlarged. He found in the present Vote that there were a number of post offices enlarged on account of the increase of business expected from the Parcels Post, and he was of opinion that the post office at Ennis ought to be included in the list. The present office was entirely inadequate for the amount of work required to be done there. He therefore wished to ask the Postmaster General whether any steps had been taken to enlarge the post office at Ennis; because, in the first place, there was not adequate accommodation for the work performed; and, in the second place, the increase of business, consequent upon the introduction of the Parcels Post, would render it impossible for the people of Ennis to do their work there satisfactorily?
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, the Government had had to enlarge a considerable number of post offices, in consequence of the coming introduction of the Parcels Post. He did not know whether Ennis would be enlarged or not; but he felt certain that if the post office in that town was inadequate before, improvements would now be carried out. He asked the hon. Member to put the question again, and in the meantime he would make inquiry into the matter.
§ MR. KENNYsaid he would put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject in the course of a few days.
MR. O'BRIENasked the Secretary to the Treasury for some information in regard to an item of £690 for the Maintenance and Repairs of the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham. A sum of £245 was asked for last year for new buildings and alterations in connection with, that hospital. Could the hon. Gentleman inform the Committee whether any Report had been received on the subject, and whether such Report recommended the discontinuance or abandonment of that hospital? Would the House be afforded an opportunity of seeing the Report?
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that was a subject which would not come before him, but before the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The only question which, would come before him would be one that involved any alterations before they were made.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if it was intended at an early date to apply Kilmainham Hospital building to any other purpose, or whether it was intended to close Kilmainham Hospital as at present used?
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that he was not aware.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (2.) £21,000, Royal University, Ireland, Buildings.
§ MR. KENNYwished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in regard to this Vote, whether the Report of the Inspectors of the Senate of the Royal University of Dublin had yet been printed and circulated, and whether it contained any statement as to the utter inadequacy of the present buildings? A considerable amount of interest had been excited 1366 upon this point among those who were connected with the University.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, no Report had been received from the Senate of the University. Moreover, if any such Report had been made, it would be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, if the University had made a special Report it would be given, but at present he had not seen one.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, this was a new item of expenditure, and he should like to know if the Vote included the whole of the work?
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the whole expenditure contemplated appeared on the Paper; but the Vote, as there shown, did not include the whole.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £10,000, Science and Art Buildings, Dublin.
§ (4.) £9,253, to complete the sum for Lighthouses Abroad.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the subject of these Lighthouses abroad was one which he had brought before the House last year, and he should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it was proposed to allow the balance of Cape Race Light dues, &c, to accumulate at the rate at which they were now accumulating? He found that on the 1st of April, 1880, there was a balance in hand of £2,936, and at the end of the year that balance was increased to £5,415. In regard to the Little Bass Light, the balance in hand on the 1st of April, 1880, was £11,500, and it was increased by the end of the year to no less a sum than £15,266, so that there was in the hands of Her Majesty's Paymaster General, and other authorities in connection with the Customs in London and elsewhere, a sum of £20,681 in connection with these Lights, while there were loans outstanding, for which these dues were liable to be appropriated, and in regard to which certain payments were annually made. For instance, he found an item of £3,400 for the repayment of interest consequent upon a loan. He failed to see the advantage of allowing 1367 these balances to go on increasing year after year, at a time when a considerable sum of money was being paid away for interest. He thought it would be better to keep smaller balances, and to diminish their outstanding liabilities.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that his attention had not been drawn to the expenditure on Cape Race and other Lighthouses; but he apprehended the time had not yet come for paying off the debt. He would, however, make an inquiry into the matter.
§ MR. WARTONwished to put a question as to another item contained in the Vote. He saw that a sum of £252 was asked for, for good conduct pay. He wanted to know whether the item was really on account of pay or not, or whether it formed part of the wages of the persons employed? It was quite evident that the sum was given in equal proportions to the whole of the Hospital assistants, because he found that the same Vote last year amounted to £276, as against £252 asked for this year for 22 assistants, which would be £ 12 each. If this good conduct pay really formed part of the pay of the assistants, it ought to be clearly stated what their wages really were, and it should not be inserted in the Vote as good conduct pay.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that good conduct pay was not strictly involved in the contract for wages, but was earned by those whose conduct had been good. As a matter of fact, all those men had behaved so well that last year they all of them received good conduct pay.
§ MR. SALTasked why the sum voted for an Inspector with ordinary rations last year was only £450, and this year was £800?
§ MR. J. HOLMSsaid, the increase in this Vote arose from a re-casting of the staff at Nassau, and which would not likely occur again in future years.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (5.) £22,323, to complete the sum for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, there was one item included in this Vote which he should like the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to explain. He referred to the increase of £1,850 for the Maintenance of Consular Buildings at Bangkok. Last year the sum asked for was £400, and 1368 this year it had been increased to £2,250. An increase amounting to something like 500 per cent, for the mere maintenance and repairs of a building, struck him, at first sight, as rather extraordinary. In regard to the other items, there were heavy charges in connection with last year's Estimates for China and Japan, and he found them repeated this year. In regard to the first item, there appeared to be an increase of £4,600, and in the second an increase of £1,100. Then, in regard to Constantinople, the Vote was much the same as that of last year; and so also with regard to Berlin and St. Petersburgh, the sums they were called upon to pay was almost the same as last year. But would the right hon. Gentleman say what Report was to be obtained from the Travelling Inspector of whom they heard for the first time last year? He could very well imagine that an officer of that kind would have to travel long distances in order to inspect particular works; but when the subject was mentioned last year, they were told that his services would be of great value in keeping down unnecessary expenditure in connection with these buildings. In regard to the works at Constantinople, China, and Japan, there appeared to have been no perceptable diminution of charge; and he thought it was desirable to have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there was a likelihood of effecting some diminution in future years.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, stated that in reference to the Vote for Bangkok, the increase had been rendered necessary by the construction of new buildings. Money had been advanced to provide the Consul there with a proper building. In reference to the Travelling Inspector, he could only say it was not a new appointment. It had been in existence not for one but for several years, and the Travelling Inspector had very heavy work to do. Wherever a demand was made for expenditure, he was sent out to inspect the buildings, and ascertain what was really necessary; and, as a matter of fact, his appointment, and the services he had rendered, had led already to a great saving of expenditure. In point of fact, he believed that the country had been saved many thousands of pounds by the employment of this officer.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he desired to call attention to one very small item included in this Vote. Of course, no Member of the Committee would care about the money actually involved; but he thought the matter required a little explanation on the part of the Government. What he referred to was a charge of £30 for the repair of the walls of cemeteries in the Crimea. He did not know how this had been brought about. They certainly had heard from the public newspapers that the graves of the men who had died in the Crimea wore in such a state of ruin that public subscriptions were asked for in order to keep them in repair. He, therefore, thought it was paltry on the part of the British Government not to give more than £30 to keep these cemeteries in order. Surely the Government could afford more than that. He believed that these graves were in a most deplorable state, and a sum had been mentioned the other day as a proper estimate of the expense of repairing them. Notwithstanding that, all the Government proposed to pay was the small amount of £30. He thought the Government ought to inquire a little more fully into the matter, and be prepared to take upon themselves a larger share of the expense.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, this matter had been under the consideration of the Government lately. No doubt, the cemeteries in the Crimea were in very bad order. There was a considerable number of them, and it was extremely difficult to guard and watch them properly. The Government, however, had offered to contribute in a larger proportion, provided that a certain sum of money should be raised by subscription in the first place.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was sorry to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) urging the Government to spend the public money. They had always been accustomed in that House to hear his hon. Friend recommend a reduction rather than an increase of Expenditure. He (Mr. Dillwyn) wished to have some explanation with regard to the discrepancies in the sum paid for different Embassy Houses. Was it a fact that one Embassy House was so much more splendid than another that it was necessary to pay much higher rent for it? He saw that the rent for 1370 the Embassy House at Berlin was £3,000. He presumed that the Embassy House at St. Petersburgh was not a splendid building, because he saw there was only £1,670 a-year paid for it. There seemed to be an enormous difference between the two items, and he wanted an explanation of what it was that caused the discrepancy.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREstated that the house at Berlin was held under a lease entered into some years ago; but the time had nearly arrived when the lease would come to an end. No doubt, the rent was very high; but property there was exceptionally valuable.
§ Vote agreed to.