CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS. (Hansard, 27 July 1885)

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he thought the Committee should have some little explanation of this Vote, seeing that the original Estimate for 1885–6 was £2,120, and that a Supplementary sum of £5,000 was now asked for. At the bottom of the Estimate it was stated that the Supplementary amount was required to provide more accommodation at Marlborough House. More accommodation might be wanted; but, whether or not, some explanation should be afforded by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works.

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET)
said, the reason of the Vote was this—that now that the family of the Prince and Princess of Wales had grown up the accommodation at Marlborough House had become altogether insufficient. Some of the children of the Royal Family who used to occupy the same rooms when they were children being obliged still to do so now that they had grown up. The Committee would see the inconvenience of that. The object of this Vote was to add some attics, in which the servants would be placed.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, he should like to have some explanation of this. The Vote committed them to an expenditure of £500,000. The first Vote was £16,000; but the whole harbour would cost £500,000—including the cost of the prison, which would exceed £50,000. The harbour was likely to cost more than the Estimate, so that the total expenditure might be £700,000. This was one of the harbours recommended by the Select Committee which had sat to inquire into the subject of Harbours of Refuge. He had been a Member of the Committee, by whom several recommendations had been made. He did not know were Peterhead was, but supposed it was somewhere on the East Coast. [Laughier.] Well, would someone tell him where it was? Where was it?

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, he did not object to expenditure on this harbour; but several other harbours had been recommended.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, it was true that the Committee had recommended that some harbours should be constructed on the East Coast of Great Britain; but they had also recommended that one should be constructed at Galway. He wished to point out that if they were going, on the recommendation of the Committee, to vote money for one or two harbours in the United Kingdom, it would be a very unequal measure of justice if, at the same time, they were not going to give money for a much-needed harbour in Ireland. There should be some statement from the Government with regard to this harbour at Peterhead. £500,000 or £600,000 should not be voted without some explanation.

§ MR. ASHER
said, that before the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland) made a statement as to this matter, perhaps he, as representing the district, might be allowed to say a word or two. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) was under a misapprehension in supposing that the Vote now proposed had anything to do with the recommendations of the Committee which deliberated last year in regard to the supply of harbour accommodation. 186 This Vote was proposed, as he understood, solely in accordance with the recommendations of a totally different Committee—the Committee appointed some years ago to consider the question of the employment of convicts; and the leading idea, he apprehended, embodied in tills Vote was the employment of convicts in the execution of large undertakings. The hon. and gallant Member was aware that it had been the practice for a number of years to employ convicts in the execution of public works, the reason being that it was found highly expedient to combine reformatory with penal treatment in convict prisons. There could be no doubt that the effect of the course which was adopted in this respect had been highly advantageous in the past. It had been found that if convicts were engaged on public works, they were enabled when liberated to find their way more easily amongst the industrial populations of the country, and to escape from the temptations to return to the haunts of vice frequented by them before their conviction. The Committee, which was appointed in 1882, was composed of Gentlemen who were competent to deal with this question, and they reported very strongly in favour of the system. [Colonel NOLAN: What Committee?] It was a Committee appointed by a Treasury Minute, for the purpose of "considering certain questions relating to the employment of convicts in the United Kingdom," and it was composed of Colonel Sir Edmund Du Cane, Colonel C. Pasley, Colonel Sir Andrew Clarke, Captain G. Nares, P.N., Mr. A. B. Mitford, the Hon. C. P. Bourke, and Mr. Andrew B. Boll. These Gentlemen, after a very minute investigation into the matter, reported that— The employment of convicts on large public works, such as the construction of harbours of refuge, or works under some public Department, so carried on as to be conducive to the progress of their reformation and to their preparation for a return to society on the expiration of their sentence, is an essential part of our penal system."' They further said, with regard to the improvements in this respect, that— The statistics of crime point irresistibly to the conclusion that they have met with most remarkable success, diminishing the number of criminals to be subjected to punishment in a degree which, perhaps, surpassed the anticipations of those who introduced them. These statistics, which had been sup- 187 plied to them, showed the very great benefit the system had been to the country; because, notwithstanding the large increase which had taken place in the population, the average number of sentences of penal servitude passed for the years 1865–9 were 2,148; whereas in 1880 they had dropped to 1,654. These Gentlemen attributed that diminution largely to the improved mode of treating the convicts by keeping them employed on large public works. Then these Gentlemen had to consider what works should be undertaken, and their attention was directed to the question of the employment of Scotch male convicts, numbering nearly 800, on some public work in Scotland. They reported that it appeared to them that these convicts could be employed with great advantage in the construction of a harbour of refuge at Peterhead. Their words were— They have, however, made inquiries into various schemes for public works in Scotland which have from time to time been proposed, and they are satisfied that the most likely project for benefiting the shipping and fishing interests of the country at large, and at the same time profitably employing convicts, is the construction of a harbour of refuge at Peterhead, in Aberdeenshire. They pointed out, at the same time, that Peterhead was the most prominent point on the East Coast of Scotland, and that— From the Firth of Forth to the Cromarty Firth, a distance of 250 miles, there is no harbour to which men-of-war, merchant ships, or fishing' boats can resort in the easterly gales that are so prevalent on the coast. A Sub-Committee had also been appointed to consider the matter, and had unanimously reported in favour of the construction of a harbour at Peterhead.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. Asher's) explanation was a very clear one; but he (Colonel Nolan) wanted to point out to the Committee that here there was nearly £500,000 put aside for Scotland, and yet, although they had a Committee of the House of Commons reporting in favour of harbours in Ireland, there was no sum for Ireland included in the Votes. There was no promise, moreover, that these other harbours would ever be made. There had been a recommendation for a harbour at Galway; but he saw nothing whatever done to give effect to the recom- 188 mendations either of the Committee over which the Home Secretary presided, or of the Harbours of Refuge Committee. He thought they ought to have some satisfactory assurance on this subject.

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
said, that he was Chairman of the Committee which had sat on the question of Harbours of Refuge; and he thought he ought to point out that the question of convict labour was strictly outside the scope of that inquiry. The question of constructing a harbour at Peterhead was already decided upon before that Committee got to work; and they proceeded with their inquiry on the basis that harbours were to be made both at Peterhead and at Dover. He did not think that hon. Members could complain of that Committee therefore; at the same time, he was sorry that the Government had not seen their way to take the matter up more keenly.

§ MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE
said, the only question was that of employing a portion of the convicts—namely, the Scotch convicts—on a harbour in Scotland; and it was plain that if they were not employed at Peterhead they would have to be employed elsewhere. The Vote, therefore, imposed no new charge upon the Exchequer.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
asked, what did the Government propose to do for Ireland similar to that which they were now asked to vote £500,000 for for Scotland? It was well known in the House that there was a question of a harbour at a place called Mutton Harbour, at Galway, and they had had many promises in regard to it; but they had never come to anything. The Scotchmen, who were more practical than the Irishmen were, had succeeded in getting a grant of £500,000; but the Irishmen got put off with a few friendly words. He suggested that Ireland might employ the convicts which it had in making a beginning upon those works which were so much wanted.

§ MR. ARTHUR PEASE
said, that considerable progress had been made with the harbour at Dover, and now they heard that progress was to be made at Peterhead. He should just like to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland) what prospect there was of any works being undertaken on the North-East Coast of Eng- 189 land? There was no harbour between the Tyne and the Humber, although there were many lives lost around that coast; and he should much like to know what prospect there was of a start being made to construct a harbour in that neighbourhood?

§ MR. P. J. POWER
said, it was unfair that the Government should carry out the recommendations in regard to England and Scotland, and not in regard to Ireland. He thought it was only reasonable that some Gentleman representing the Government should give them some little information as to their intentions with regard to Ireland.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)
said, the question of convicts in Galway—in fact, in the whole of Ireland—was a matter which had been referred to a Departmental Committee some years ago. They went at some length into the matter, as far as it related to England; but, unfortunately, they did not go into the question of Scotland, and Ireland. That Committee had never finished their inquiry; and, in his humble opinion, he thought they ought to go on inquiring into the subject so far as it regarded Scotland and Ireland.

§ MR. O'KELLY
said, the main question was that they wanted some money for making harbours in Ireland; and he thought it would be the duty of the Irish Members to insist on the postponement of the Vote until they got some assurance from the Government that the recommendation of the Committee would be carried out.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHERTON CROSS)
said, he must point out that the recommendation of the Prisons' Committee in Ireland—that convicts should be employed in making alterations in Mountjoy Prison—had been carried out. When that was completed, he quite agreed that the question of employing them on harbours in Ireland should be taken into serious consideration.

§ MR. O'KELLY
said, he was sure that if the Government would only determine to construct the harbours they would have less need to build prisons. One of the reasons which made it necessary to build prisons in Ireland arose from the fact that they did not develop the re- 190 sources of the country. The best thing for the Government to do was to spend some of the money which they were now spending on prisons on building harbours.