HC Deb 12 March 1885 vol 295 cc1032-40

(8.) £3,800, Temporary Commissions.

MR. SEXTON

said, he had said a few minutes ago that the Irish Members had a desire to ask for further information than the Boundary Commissioners had laid before the House. The Commissioners had presented maps of the final boundaries, and certain documents called Reports, which, however, were very meagre in their character. They assuredly had not guided the Commissioners in arriving at their final scheme. That information was exclusively stored in certain rooms of Whitehall; and he therefore asked that hon. Members might have access to it. The Irish Members intended to dispute the decisions of the Boundary Commissioners in certain instances. The Irish Members desired to have the evidence collected by the Commissioners and used by them in coming to a final decision, and they wished to make the Commissioners the servants of the House instead of its masters. The House would be better able to reverse the judgment of the Commissioners with the evidence before it upon which the Commission itself founded its judgment. He had no doubt the information he required could be given without inconvenience.

MR. HEALY

said, he should like to know, in addition upon this Vote, how the amount was to be appropriated? There was, he understood, £3,800 asked for as a Supplementary provision; and he should like to know whether the Commissioners, at least as far as Ireland was concerned, were being paid, because he had some reason to believe that such was not the case, and that these gentlemen were doing the work for nothing? He thought that men of this kind should be paid for their work, conceiving it to be very undesirable that they should be going about the country declaring that they had been fulfilling these important functions for nothing. He desired to have some information beyond that which was at present available to hon. Members, concerning certain districts in which he and his hon. Friends were interested—for instance, Tyrone, Down, Armagh, Derry, Donegal, and Dublin City. They were not so particular with regard to Tyrone and County Down; but they were very particular with regard to the others. He would go further than the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) as to the evidence which they would require. The evidence upon which the Dublin City divisions were decided upon were certainly somewhat extraordinary. The Commissioners had adopted a scheme of the Conservative Party which had not been presented on the day appointed for the discussion; it was handed in next morning at a totally different inquiry—to the inquiry relating to the City of Dublin. The scheme was considered to be altogether absurd; and it was believed that it had not the slightest chance of being adopted. It was laughed at as a joke on the part of the Orange Emergency people. The Irish Members would, in addition to the information his hon. Friend wanted, like to have the scheme proposed by the Conservative Party in this case. It was only five or six schemes that the Irish Members asked for. As to the maps the Commissioners had drawn up, so far as Ireland was concerned they had good reason to complain of them. In England, where they had no baronies, it did not much mat- ter how the outlines of the divisions were shown; but in Ireland, where the Lord Lieutenant's instructions were that baronies should mark the line of division, baronies should be shown. In the Irish map, however, there was nothing to show these divisions. The City of Derry was not shown in the map of Donegal—Derry, as hon. Members were aware, being on the other bank of the Foyle. The object of preparing the plans in this way had, no doubt, been to throw dust into the eyes of the public. Then take the Lough of Strang-lord; to look at the map, no one would imagine, who did not know the district, that there was water there at all; it was divided so awkwardly, and the map was so inexpressive. Probably, if it were not for Lough Swilly, hon. Members might have no idea that there was a lough there. It was not candid, he maintained, to use maps in that way, simply, as he believed, for the purpose of blindfolding the House.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he thought he could meet the hon. and learned Gentleman on certain points. Ear from admitting that he thought the maps were so bad, his opinion really was that they had been prepared with great care. He had to admit that the map of Dublin City was difficult to make out. City maps were always difficult to make out. He had been able to understand the county maps very easily; but the map of Dublin City he admitted had been a puzzling one. With regard to the hon. Member's request that maps showing the original scheme should be given to the House, the hon. and learned Member had not put the request tonight in exactly the same form which he had put it in the House some time ago; and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) might be able now to meet him. The hon. and learned Member wished to know whether he could circulate amongst Members a map showing the original scheme. It would not be difficult to do that with regard to six or seven schemes only; but he thought if they agreed to the request they would soon be asked to do the same in the case of all the English schemes. The more important question of the hon. and learned Member was that with regard to some further statement of reasons by the Commissioners; and upon that point he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would endeavour to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman. To-morrow he would be able to see one or two of the leading Members of the Boundary Commission; and he would ask them, if they had not themselves got sufficient facts to make a proper statement before the House, to obtain the facts from those who held the inquiries; if they could make a distinct Report he would ask them to make it, and lay it before the House. Of course, he could not pledge himself to the exact form of the Report; but he would do his best to obtain the information which was desired. He was not allowed on this Vote to discuss the details of the changes which had been made; but he might say, in passing, that, whatever case the hon. and learned Member might make out with regard to certain boundaries, he had been misled by considering the case of Dublin County by itself. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were to look at some of the Scotch schemes, at some of the Middlesex divisions, at the Tyneside divisions, at some of the South Wales divisions, he would find them very similar indeed to the Kingstown division in the county of Dublin. As he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had already stated to the Committee, Sir John Lambert served on all three Commissions. Sir John Lambert was in a very delicate state of health, and yet he came forward and gave an amount of time and labour to the Commission such as had seldom been witnessed. Sir Francis Sandford followed his example, and asked not to be paid. The other gentlemen had been paid at the rate of so much a-day—in some cases at the rate of five guineas a-day, and in other cases at the rate of three guineas a-day.

MR. SEXTON

said, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had ventured a defence of the boundaries of the county of Dublin; but when the time came he (Mr. Sexton) and his hon. Friends would be able to show that there were aspects and features in the boundaries of county Dublin which had no parallel in the Three Kingdoms. He would like to know if the Assistant Boundary Commissions were still in existence, or if their powers were exhausted; because, in Committee, it might be found necessary to refer to the Commissioners themselves.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the three Boundary Commissions ceased to exist a day or two before the House resumed its Sittings; but he had asked Sir John Lambert, Sir Francis Sandford, and Colonel Owen Jones to continue to advise him, and they had kindly consented to do so. Whenever a point arose, he should suggest that it should be referred to those gentlemen.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £15,400, Inland Revenue.

(10.) £20,000, Post Office Telegraphs.

(11.) £20,000, Grant to the Family of the late General Charles George Gordon.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

I think I ought, on this Vote, to give the reason why, after the lamentable fate of General Gordon—he was a personal friend of mine, and no one deplores his loss more than I do—it became part of the duty of Her Majesty's Government to consider whether any grant should be made to his family. There were doubts whether certain members of his family would wish to receive any grant of public money, and also it was difficult at first to know what might have been General Gordon's own wishes in a matter of that kind, and how, if this grant were made, he would wish it to be divided amongst the members of his family. Perhaps I may say now that the Prime Minister would have made the statement I am now making, had he been able to be in his place. I know, however, that I represent my right hon. Friend's views on the subject. The first question we wished to ascertain was, what would probably have been General Gordon's wishes in this matter; and, secondly, what would be the wishes of his family if Parliament thought fit to propose a grant for them. The Committee will observe that we have worded the grant in this way— This sum will be paid to trustees, and will be applied by them for the benefit of General Gordon's family, in accordance, as far as possible, with his last wishes, and in such manner as Her Majesty may direct. Now, after some trouble, we ascertained that General Gordon expressed his latest wishes in a paper which may, perhaps, not be called a will, but which was equivalent to a will. Those wishes were that any capital sum he might receive—and he expected to receive a considerable sum from the King of the Belgians—should he expended in a particular way. The Committee will remember that General Gordon was in the service of the King of the Belgians at the time Her Majesty's Government asked him to go to the Soudan, and that his service with the King of the Belgians would probably have resulted in a considerable pecuniary benefit to him. He expressed, in the paper I have referred to, a wish that the interest on whatever sum he might receive should be applied for the benefit of his sister, or some of his sisters, in the first instance, and that the capital sum should ultimately be divided amongst the whole of his nephews and nieces. That, we are satisfied, was his intention as to any sum he might receive from the King of the Belgians. I do not remember the exact number of his nephews and nieces; but it is a large number. I think General Gordon left three sisters, two of whom are married. There are also the widows of two brothers, and altogether in the families of his brothers and sisters there are a considerable number both of sons and daughters. We propose, then, to follow out what we believe were General Gordon's wishes, of course reserving, in the words of the Resolution, to Her Majesty power to make any other direction as to the appropriation of the grant, should further information be received as to the deceased's wishes in the matter. I have given the Committee all the information I have at this moment.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

thought the Committee generally would agree with the proposition the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer put before them. The purpose for which he rose was to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. There was a movement, on a large scale, to raise a memorial to General Gordon; but he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) did not think that any private memorial could express the feeling of the country. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider with his Colleagues whether it would not be within the power of the Government to propose a Vote to the House to erect a national monument to the memory of the gallant General in St. Paul's Cathedral? He threw the suggestion out to the right hon. Gentleman, because he thought that its adoption would meet with cordial approval both in the House and in the country.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, he would inform his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. N. Fowler) proposed; and he was sure it would receive the right hon. Gentleman's serious consideration.

MR. O'KELLY

said, that, in connection with this Vote, it was proper to ask the Government whether they would not take into consideration the propriety of making a grant to the family of Mr. Power? Mr. Power died in the service of the country, and had some claim, he (Mr. O'Kelly) thought, to the consideration of the Government.

Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, he agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Kelly) that it would give great satisfaction to many people if the Government were to make suitable provision for the family of Mr. Power, a gentleman who, like General Gordon, lost his life in the public service. It was well he (Mr. William Redmond) should say that he was speaking altogether without any knowledge of what the feeling of the family was; but he knew Mr. Power personally, and he had a great admiration for his character.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, that he would not fail to represent the wishes of the hon. Gentlemen (Mr. O'Kelly and Mr. William Redmond) to the Prime Minister. It was well, however, to point out that Mr. Power was an unpaid commercial Consul, and the services of such Consuls were not counted as public services.

MR. SEXTON

said, that the fact that Mr. Power's services were not paid for was a very bad reason for not making his family compensation. Mr. Power was a man who underwent considerable hardship, faced extraordinary peril, and ultimately lost his life in the public service. Seeing how often Mr. Power's services had been described and acknowledged in the country, in the Press, and even in the House by Ministers of the Crown, it would be ungracious in the Government of a wealthy nation if they did not compensate his family.

Vote agreed to.

(12.) £292,500, Army.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

The reason for asking this Vote is given on the face of the Estimate; but I may be allowed to add a few words of explanation. The Vote will form no charge whatever on the taxpayer, but is necessary because the original Estimate for 1884–5 assumed that a large amount would be received from the Egyptian Treasury on account of the Army of Occupation; whereas this amount will not be paid during the present financial year, but early in 1885–6. The state of Egyptian finance justified our postponing, from time to time, calls on Egypt for the instalments of this contribution as they became due; and we did so in the full belief that the new loan would be raised before the end of this month, and that all the payments would then be made. But delays, with which the Committee is acquainted, have occurred, and the Convention and Decree under which the loan will be raised are not yet signed. We must, therefore, vote what Egypt was to contribute, and recover the amount after the 31st instant. This explanation covers the next Vote also. In all, Egypt contributes £4 per month per man, of which £3 5s. is credited to the Army, and 15s., for transport and other services, to the Navy.

Vote agreed to.

(13.) £52,200, Navy.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

explained that this sum also ought to have been paid by the Egyptian Government before the 31st of the present month. They would not, however, be able to pay it until after the 1st of April, when the loan would be raised. The money would then be paid and received in the coming financial year instead of in the present one.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, that this was an exceedingly peculiar arrangement. He believed the impression of the public had always been that the loan proposed to be raised was not to meet the annual current expenditure of Egypt, but to make good some capital charges.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, it was to meet a deficiency in the contribution due to us this year by Egypt. The amount would be paid out of the loan.

MR. TOMLINSON

asked, if the sum borrowed from Messrs. Rothschild would be repaid?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, the loan would cover that, of course; but this Vote had nothing to do with that. The payment of this sum by Egypt had been postponed until after the 1st of April. Her Majesty's Government did not wish to press the Egyptian Government until the loan had been raised.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

asked, why there would not be a reduction on the Estimates of- the coming year corresponding with the addition to the Estimates of the present year?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had studied the rules as to bringing to account grants in aid. If more money came in aid than was shown in the Estimates, the amount would be paid into the Exchequer. This sum, when received from Egypt, would be paid into the Exchequer.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman had it in his power to cite a single instance in which the Estimates of the appropriations in aid were verified by the actual results?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

Yes; I think so.

Vote agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.