§ (1.) £3,300, Furniture of Public Offices, Great Britain.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that he congratulated the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) on being nominated to the important Office of Chairman of Committees, and felt confident that the House and country would be well pleased to have the benefit of that hon. Gentleman's knowledge and experience in that Office. He (Sir George Balfour) would also add that as in the new Parliament there were a very large number of new Members, he presumed all of them were anxious, while securing the efficiency of the Public Service, to 727 bring about a more thorough condition of economy in the Public Expenditure than had existed hitherto. He trusted greater attention to the Estimates would be given than in past years. He regretted, therefore, to have to point out to new Members that there was no information contained in the Estimates now submitted to Parliament which could possibly afford any guide to them upon points of that nature. In point of fact, under such circumstances, it was almost a waste of time to enter into a discussion of the Estimates at all. It would be better to pass the whole of the present demand of £250,000 without discussion. It was only 1 per cent of increase in the Civil Estimates, and the amount annually added had been nearly £1,000,000 a-year.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £500, Metropolitan Police Court Buildings.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked for some explanation of this Vote, which, upon the face of it, was intended to be applied in providing better accommodation for the Wands worth Police Court. That was a question which had been before the House for some years, and invariably objected to both by Members and by the Government, the plea being that until the Municipality of London was settled the reform of the Wands worth office could not be entertained. Now, without any warning the money was asked for, and he wished to know how the matter had been settled?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TEEASUEY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER)I wish to explain that the Vote is due to the necessity of providing better accommodation in the way of Police Courts in London. As the hon. and gallant Member has said, the case of the Wands worth Police Court has been before this House for 10 years, and it has very frequently been a matter of discussion. Last year the House expressed a strong opinion that the Court ought to be improved, but that the charges ought to be thrown upon the Metropolis. Pending the passing of a measure for reforming Municipal Government in the Metropolis, it was deemed necessary, in order to secure the proper administration of justice, that something should be done with regard to the Wands worth Police Court. It was suggested that a sum of £1,500 728 should be spent; but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the then Home Secretary, would not sanction, in the first instance, any expenditure beyond £1,000. I am glad to say that the total cost of the alterations which have been made, including the hiring of the Town Hall at Wands worth for police purposes, has not exceeded £800. Under the circumstances, I think that a very satisfactory settlement has been made in a matter in regard to which there has certainly been a considerable amount of public inconvenience.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £300, Dover Harbour.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURI think that the Committee ought not to be called upon to pass this Vote, unless some assurance is given by the Government in regard to the nature of the works which are intended to be undertaken in the future. I am afraid that the unwise step already taken of building barracks for convicts before the House has had a full and clear detail of the kind of harbour works and cost thereof will be pleaded in urging on this costly harbour; and if this item is agreed to it will only be used to strengthen the cry of Parties for the commencement of a very large expenditure indeed, as to the propriety and utility of which there are very considerable doubts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will recollect that Votes have already been taken for the erection of a convict prison at Dover, as it was intended to construct the works in connection with the harbour by means of convict labour. But although I have repeatedly asked to have Estimates submitted to the House, I have invariably been told that these expenses were only preliminary. More than once a distinct promise has been given that before any permanent expenditure was undertaken a full explanation as to the nature and extent of the works, as well as their cost, and saving from the use of canals, would be given to the House. I think I am entitled to complain of the manner in which the subject has hitherto been dealt with; and, so far as Dover Harbour is concerned, I am of opinion that the money proposed to be spent would be better used for improving the fishery harbours; but if, on the respon- 729 sibility of the Government, a harbour is deemed essential for the safety of the country, then we ought to have a thoroughly efficient harbour of a much larger area, with deeper water for our big vessels, so that the expenditure made upon it may really prove useful.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TBEASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER)I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that Parliament ought not to abandon the works which have already been commenced at Dover, and that hon. Members are entitled to know exactly what the nature of the step is which we are about to take. The House, however, has already decided that there shall be a harbour at Dover, and that that harbour shall be constructed by convict labour. Considerable works have already been carried out there in connection with the erection of a convict prison. The sum of £300 in the present Vote is incurred entirely in preliminary expenses for providing plans of the proposed works; and there will be in the Estimates of the coming year a Vote of £1,000 for surveying the site and taking bearings. After that has been done the House will be supplied with a proper Estimate of the cost of the works; but it is absolutely impossible, in the present position of the matter, to submit full plans and Estimates.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURI must confess that the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is very unsatisfactory. Here we are involving the country in an admitted expenditure of upwards of £1,000,000, and we are not yet in possession of plans to show what the nature of the work is to be, or what cost will be ultimately entailed upon the country. But, like most engineering works, it may be safely calculated to be three or four times this sum. No doubt, the steps already taken, and the money spent on barracks for convicts, will be pleas for involving the country in a large expenditure in connection with the employment of convict labour. But these works and the outlay were incurred in the face of strong opposition from me. I am sorry that the Committee has not received a fuller explanation, and I feel bound to raise my voice against the Vote by way of protest.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDAs I understand, the money is required for the pur- 730 pose of making plans and ascertaining what ought to be the proper site.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDIt is quite clear that plans are absolutely necessary before anything can be decided upon as to the future works, and before that estimate of the work can be made which the hon. and gallant Member desires, and which the House will, of course, require to see before any Vote for the actual work is taken.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURWhat I contend is, that before Government decided upon putting the country to this very large expenditure they ought to have made all the inquiries and prepared the plans and detailed Estimates which they say, by this £300 grant, they are only now beginning to make. But full inquiries have been already made, as hon. Members can find out by referring to a volume of harbour plans laid before Parliament in 1847–8. The Admiralty of that day, moved thereto by Sir Robert Peel, had Dover Bay carefully examined, and nine of the most eminent engineers were invited to prepare plans for a harbour, and the engineer estimated the cost at £4,000,000; and less than this sum, to form an efficient harbour, cannot be expected to be incurred. I believe that I speak the opinion of many hon. Members when I say that the large sum of money which will be laid out in constructing this great harbour may be used for far more useful purposes in other directions — 40 or 50 fishery harbours being possible. I believe I am fully justified in saying that the late Earl of Beaconsfield strongly opposed the construction of this harbour, and that Sir Stafford North cote took a similar course. Indeed, in the House of Lords one of the most convincing speeches against the harbour was made by Lord Beaconsfield, against the advocacy of Lord Granville in favour of a harbour at Dover. A Liberal Government has been generally understood to be anxious to reform the Public Expenditure; but I cannot say that they have been very successful in the present instance. I do not propose to offer any further remarks to the Committee in reference to this Vote; but I wish to enter a strong protest against the course now taken.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELI am glad that the attention of the Secretary to the 731 Treasury has been called to this Vote; and I wish to know whether, after what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member opposite, we are to understand that by passing this Vote of £300 we are pledging the House of Commons to the future expenditure either of a sum of £750,000, or of £1,000,000—the sum at which the works are, I believe, estimated?
§ SIR ROBERT PEELThen I am clearly to understand that we are not pledging the country to such an expenditure?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TEEASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER)This expenditure of £300 commits the House of Commons to no pledge whatever. It is simply for the purpose of obtaining plans for ascertaining what the works will cost. No doubt, works have been going on for some time in connection with the erection of a large convict establishment for the purpose of carrying out works for the extension of Dover Harbour. Some pressure has been put upon the Government to accelerate the works in reference to that harbour; and my Predecessor in Office (Sir Henry Holland) has stated that it is absolutely impossible to ascertain what the cost of the works will be unless this preliminary inquiry is made. The sole object of the Vote is to ascertain what the works will cost.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELI wish to point out to the Committee and the country that we are now about to embark in works which will cost the country, according to an Estimate which has been already given, a sum of £750,000, or probably double that sum, before they are completed. Successive Ministries have, over and over again, refused to sanction that expenditure; and, therefore, I feel bound to enter my protest against the course which is now being taken. I think it would be a very injudicious thing even to vote this sum of £300, when it is more than probable that when the Estimate for the cost of the works comes before the Committee we shall be told that we have, by our vote on this small sum, already sanctioned the work. I entirely join in the protest which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) against this ship-shod 732 way of conducting business. If this large harbour is required at Dover—and it has been held not to be required by former Governments—let the Secretary to the Treasury, or some other Member of the Government, state the reasons which have induced the Government to change their opinion, and why they now consider it desirable to ask Parliament to undertake the work.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TEEASUEY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE)The right hon. Gentleman may accept, without any doubt, the assurance of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury that this is not a Vote which alters or changes in any respect the position of the House in regard to Dover Harbour beyond what is expressed on the face of the Vote—namely, that it is intended to procure certain plans for the purpose of enabling the House to form a judgment as to the nature of the work. I am not myself distinctly acquainted with all the details of this question; but I believe that the works at Dover Harbour are very much needed, in consequence of the absolute necessity of finding employment in some shape or other for the convicts. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was Home Secretary last year, will be able to say in what state he left the matter when he gave up the Office of Home Secretary; and, no doubt, some Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite will be able to explain what took place with regard to it when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in Office. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing has been done which is in the slightest degree irregular.
§ MR. BAKERI rise for the purpose of asking for information. I have been given to understand that this is simply a question of preparing plans which may or may not subsequently be carried out. If hon. Members will look a little lower down page 7, where a statement is made in reference to the Expenditure, it will be found that the details of these preliminary expenses include hire of labour, rent of offices, and the salary of a foreman of works. Those who are at all acquainted with the building trade will be aware that the last thing you do before you commence the erection of works is to employ a foreman of works. I never heard of a foreman of works being employed before the plans 733 were regularly formulated; and, therefore, the explanation which has just been given in regard to this Vote is not one which is worthy of the attention of the Committee. As one of the new Members of the present Parliament, I must apologize for intruding upon the attention of the Committee; but I wish to point out to the Committee how impossible it is for those who are desirous of assisting in any way in obtaining the retrenchment of the Expenditure of the country to do so with justice to themselves, considering that the document containing these Estimates was only given to hon. Members this morning. I would submit that it is most desirable these Votes, whether only supplementary or on account, should be placed in the hands of hon. Members some time before it is possible for them to be brought forward.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks as to the time at which the Estimates have been laid upon the Table; but the Government are really not responsible for what has taken place. To-night is the very earliest night on which it has been possible to go into Supply; and my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government said last night that there were really very few days at the disposal of the Government before the close of the financial year on which it would be possible to deal with these questions. No doubt, it is inconvenient; but that inconvenience is inevitable. With regard to Dover Harbour, it is now two years since the matter was discussed in the House; and I stated then, with, I think, the acquiescence of both sides of the House, how the matter stood. I then occupied the position of Home Secretary; and I had to consider, as hon. Gentlemen who preceded and succeeded me know very well, that one of the questions which pressed for settlement when the Government came into Office in 1880 was what was to be done with the convicts who were likely to be set free by the approaching completion of the works at Portland, Chatham, and elsewhere. It is a most important part of our penal system that there should be some public works on which convicts may be employed. That is absolutely essential. We could not carry on our penal system with any advantage unless we had some public work on which convict labour 734 could be employed. Then we had to consider what were the works which could be carried on to the best advantage under these circumstances; and a Committee was appointed to consider the rival claims of Dover and Filey as suitable stations for a harbour of refuge. In this House there has always been, as any hon. Gentleman who has taken an interest in the question knows, a sort of rivalry in regard to the construction of a harbour of refuge between Filey and Dover. It must be remembered that we had to deal with the roughest kind of labour, and not with persons who could be employed to do work here, there, and everywhere. Convict labour can only be employed under very strict and limited conditions. The work provided should be such as to employ a large number of men in the same place for a long time, as otherwise we could not afford to build a prison for them, and to make arrangements that would be necessary for them. Therefore, on completing the large works at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Chatham, where you have been in the habit of employing convict labour, it became essential that, in continuing to employ that labour, you should provide works of a similar character, upon which you would be able to employ labour of the roughest kind, and which works themselves would last for a considerable period. All these circumstances were carefully considered by a Committee of the Cabinet, who had in their deliberations the assistance of eminent naval and military men. The question was fully considered by all parties interested in the matter; and we came to the conclusion, which was announced to the House, that, on the whole, it was desirable to continue and complete the extension of Dover Habour by constructing another breakwater which should go out at right angles from the Admiralty Pier. The Committee were of opinion that that was the best work which could be undertaken. It was a matter which was under consideration for several years; and there have been plans made—some larger and some smaller—by the Dover Harbour Commissioners and so forth in connection with the proposed works. But we determined that, on the whole, before entering upon the works themselves, it was necessary to build a prison for the convicts; and the way in which 735 a prison is built for convicts is this. In the first instance, the custom is to erect a small prison by contract, capable of holding a few men, and when that has been done the convicts themselves are employed in building a larger prison. It is proposed that we should employ something like 1,000 men at Dover; but, in the first instance, there will be built by contract a prison—I speak from memory—capable of accommodating 200 men. When that is completed and the convicts are sent there, they will be employed in building the larger prison; and I believe that that work is now going on—I mean the building of this larger prison. That is my recollection of the facts of the case. The larger question of the character of the works in connection with the harbour itself has been left unsettled; but it is to be settled within the very few years which it is estimated the building of the prison will occupy. The Prison Vote, according to my recollection of the matter, is not in any way concerned with the construction of the harbour itself. I believe that the Admiralty have not yet settled that question.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)My hon. Friend says that that has not been settled; and, therefore, the character of the harbour works itself is still undecided, and all questions as to the actual dimensions. The position and the cost of the harbour works must be brought under the consideration of the House at a future time. According to my recollection, the Estimate formed of the expenditure involved in building the prison itself amounts to the sum of between £50,000 and £60,000. That expenditure is not yet completed. Indeed, I think that it is not half completed. The work is still going on, and all other matters are still in abeyance and under the control of the Treasury.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELI think the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in conjunction with that which has been made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary to the Treasury, requires some further explanation from the Government. The late Home Secretary says that an arrangement has been made for the establishment of a harbour at Dover; and in the position he now 736 occupies as Chancellor of the Exchequer he informs the Committee that we are about to establish a convict prison at Dover, at an expense of from £50,000 to £60,000, for the purpose of undertaking works which every successive Government has condemned up to the present hour. That is a fact within my own knowledge. I recollect, years ago, expenditure of a similar character being incurred in connection with Alderney Harbour. Thousands and tens of thousands of pounds, amounting, in the whole, to more than £1,000,000, were thrown away upon those worthless works, which were supposed, at the time, to be of some advantage to us in protecting us from an invasion from France, but which have since been proved to be utterly valueless. The harbour of Dover is acknowledged to be valueless as a harbour of refuge; and yet it is stated that convict labour is to be employed there for the purpose of constructing a harbour of refuge. I think it is most important that the new Parliament, now assembled here, should have these subjects thoroughly threshed out, in order that they may understand what it is, in these days of economical professions, they are pledging the country to. I see before me my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), who has always taken great interest in these Estimates; and, although I am sorry to see that he is not a Member of the Government, I hope that he will still observe some of that independence of character which has always characterized him. I would ask him now to get up in his place and make a statement in confirmation of what I have stated. In the few remarks addressed to the Committee by the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman alluded to the necessity of finding employment for convicts; but what I wish to know is, whether the Government have, in any way, sanctioned the expenditure of £50,000 or £60,000 on a convict establishment at Dover, with the view of constructing harbour works, which are to cost at least £700,000, and probably £1,400,000 before they are finished? Is this the object for which a convict prison is being provided at Dover for the employment of the convicts who have been released from the construction of public works at Portsmouth and Plymouth? 737 In my opinion, that is not the way in which the expenditure of the public money should be carried on. If you want to employ convicts, do it in some other way, and not in the construction of works which everyone knows will be of no value at all as a harbour of refuge. In my humble judgment we, in this House, should set our faces at once against a Vote of this kind, unless we have a distinct understanding that we shall not find ourselves pledged, in the course of a few years, to a much larger expenditure.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)The House has already expressed an opinion on this subject.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELI think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)The House expressed a deliberate opinion upon it two years ago at my invitation. The proposition was that there should be a harbour of refuge established at Dover. I do not know whether the right hon. Baronet was present when the subject was brought forward. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I was.] Then the right hon. Baronet must know that the whole matter was considered, and that the House came to a deliberate opinion that the works should be done, and authorized the commencement of the convict prison. That was distinctly the case; and if the right hon. Baronet will refer back to the report of the debate, he will see that the whole matter was fairly placed before the House, and that all that was left unsettled then was the exact plans of the breakwater, which were to be subject to a revision and consideration afterwards. The House was distinctly asked to pledge itself to the proposition that a breakwater should be constructed at Dover, and that a convict prison should be built for the purpose of making provision for the convicts who were to be employed in making the breakwater. That proposition was deliberately affirmed by the House; and what is now left for the House of Commons to do is, to say what sum they propose to spend upon that breakwater. That is the only question now left; but that subject cannot be raised on the Vote now before the Committee. It can only be raised when the Committee are asked for a Vote to defray the cost of the harbour, and the present 738 Vote is only for the purpose of having plans prepared.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURThe adoption of the Vote would pledge the House to more than that.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)Not as I understand it; but I did not prepare the Estimate. As I understand the matter, it has been proposed simply for the purpose of making provision for plans in reference to the construction of harbour works. I am sure that the plans have not yet been prepared; of that I feel perfectly convinced; and there must be a further application to the House before anything can be done in the matter. When the House is asked to vote a sum of money for the harbour works the whole question of the construction of a harbour of refuge will arise, and it will then be open for the House to say what should be done. So far the details of the harbour works have not yet been laid before Parliament; but the House, in a former Session, on the distinct statement that a harbour was to be made, was committed by its action to the construction of the convict prison.
§ MR. RYLANDSI am quite prepared to confirm the general statement which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I recollect perfectly well that there was a proposition made by the Government that money should be voted for the purpose of building a prison, with the ultimate view of proceeding with those harbour works. To that extent the House went. I am bound to tell my right hon. Friend opposite the Member for Blackburn (Sir Robert Peel) that I look back upon the House of Commons in the last Parliament as being a House as little disposed to regard questions of economy as any House which ever existed. I am quite sure of this—and in this respect I confirm the right hon. Baronet's opinion—that the House has never yet been placed in possession of any Estimate of the probable expenditure on these works in such a manner as would justify the House in voting a large sum of money for carrying on works the expediency of which is more or less doubtful. Of course, we are committed to the construction of this prison; but, as I understand the present Vote, it is a Vote of £300 on account of Dover 739 Harbour; and what I am afraid is that we shall be told, if we pass this Vote of £300, that we have committed ourselves to a much greater expenditure for future works. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a pledge, which I imagine the Government will not wish to depart from, that before the House is absolutely committed to any enormous expenditure for works which have been shown in other cases to be useless, the House will be put in possession of all the information that is necessary to confirm their judgment. I must, however, remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government that a custom has grown up in Committee of Supply, which may, perhaps, not be known to new Members of the House, by which a Member of the Government comes down here with a first Vote, and having obtained that Vote has subsequently contended that the House had been committed to an expenditure for a special object. I, therefore, think that when the Government ask for a preliminary Vote they are bound to place on the Estimates the total sum which they expect to expend hereafter. I recollect, some years ago, a proposal being made in connection with a scheme for the erection of buildings on a plot of land in close contiguity with the Houses of Parliament. Upon that occasion the First Commissioner of Works came down to the House and proposed that we should vote a small sum of money—some £5,000—for preliminary expenses. That Vote was not accompanied with any statement of the entire expenditure contemplated, and on that ground I was successful in opposing it; and in consequence a very large expenditure for an unnecessary object was prevented. In this case, if we pass this Vote without a distinct understanding from the Government we may find ourselves committed to a very large expenditure indeed for a useless purpose. I know it is a thankless duty to oppose the expenditure of public money. I know that men who oppose the expenditure of public money get far more abuse than credit. I am glad that the hon. Member for the Frome Division of Somersetshire (Mr. Baker) has raised his voice on this occasion in favour of economy, seeing that he is one of the new Members on this side of the House who have been returned to this Parliament. I am confident that they, 740 as a body, will not allow the fact that we have in Office a Government which belongs to their own Party to form any ground for supporting the Government in the extravagant expenditure of public money. During the last Parliament, when a Liberal Government was in power, I constantly endeavoured to check their extravagance; but I do not know that I did much good. I received so little support that I found it was hopeless to attempt to make any impression upon the Estimates, which have gone on increasing from year to year, until they are now a perfect scandal. With regard to this Vote of £300, and seeing that we are bound to build a convict prison, it is only reasonable to ask that we should have some statement as to what is the contemplated amount of expenditure which will hereafter be incurred. We certainly ought to know the cost of the work contemplated within £10,000, £20,000, or £30,000, and I should be very glad to see in this Estimate some such statement. At all events, we have the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in voting this sum of £300 for some purpose which I do not exactly understand we are not committing ourselves to an approval of any scheme of a large character, involving ultimately a very considerable amount of expenditure. If I am to understand that no Estimate will be taken which will in any way commit the House of Commons I do not know that I should object to this small Vote.
§ MR.RITCHIEThe Department with which I was connected in the last Government (the Admiralty), although it had really no control over the expenditure, was, nevertheless, the Department which was charged with carrying out the engineering works in connection with this scheme. I may say that nothing in the shape of harbour work has been executed by the late Government, and this expenditure of £300 is intended to be purely preliminary. As some questions have been asked in reference to what is thought to be the contemplated and probable cost of the works in connection with this harbour, I will tell the Committee what I understand to be the position of matters. The question of Dover Harbour, as most hon. Members are aware, has been considered by the House on more than one occasion, and on more than one occasion 741 has been referred both to Select and Departmental Committees. I believe that the conclusion arrived at by the various Committees was that a harbour at Dover would be an extremely useful and a very desirable thing. Various schemes for that purpose have been under consideration, and on various occasions schemes have been adopted; and I think that the contemplated expenditure upon them has varied from a minimum of about £750,000 to a maximum of £2,500,000.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURThe last scheme was estimated to cost about £1,000,000.
§ MR. RITCHIEPerhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman may possess information which I do not; but my information is that the scheme involving the minimum of expenditure would cost about £750,000, while the scheme occasioning the maximum outlay would involve an expenditure of £2,500,000. Ultimately the question came to be one between two different schemes — one costing something like £1,000,000, and another costing something like £750,000; and I may say that the more expensive scheme gave deep-water accommodation in the harbour to an extent considerably greater than would be provided by the less costly plan involving an expenditure of £750,000. It was ultimately resolved by Her Majesty's Government in 1883, as I understand, to adopt the larger of these two schemes; and they, therefore, assented to a proposal which was made to them to construct a harbour at Dover, with a very large amount of deep-water accommodation, the cost of which was to be something like £1,100,000. It is, as far as I understand, upon the basis of that assent in 1883 that the works have since been proceeded with; and the works have consisted up to the present, as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) has stated, of a convict prison, which was necessary for the purpose of housing the convicts to be employed. Committees have reported, on several occasions, that a harbour at Dover would be of great benefit both to the Navy and the Mercantile Marine; and when the harbour was decided upon it was thought desirable that convicts should be employed upon the works. Up to the present time the only expenditure incurred upon the works has been the expenditure incurred for the convict prison. It follows, 742 of course, that having gone to a large expense in building a convict prison, and it having been so frequently decided that a harbour should be constructed, that the House will be asked, and will probably consent, to the construction of a harbour. I may point out that it is contemplated that when the harbour is completed, which I understand will not be for 16 or 20 years, it is to be handed over to a Dover Harbour Commission; and it is believed that the dues received by that Commission for the use of the harbour would pay a fair interest upon about one-half of the total expenditure.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI do not want to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just down into the statistics with which he has favoured the Committee; but I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to one aspect of the question which, up to the present moment, appears to have been lost sight of. It is proposed to enter into a large expenditure of public money; but in regard to this particular service it is proposed to expend the whole of that money in Great Britain. We have it upon the authority of one of the chief officials of the Board of Trade, within the last few weeks, that a very much larger sum is raised in Ireland by Imperial taxation than is spent in that country. We have for years been contending that the distribution of public money is most inequitable as regards Ireland, and this is an illustration of what we complained of. We have convicts in Ireland as well as in England, and coasts which require harbour accommodation in Ireland as well as in this country; and we contribute according to our resources quite as much, as taxpayers, as those of England to the Public Expenditure. I would therefore ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he proposes to do in regard to the distribution of the public money? What is Ireland to get for the purpose of constructing harbours?
THE CHAIRMANI must call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the Question now before the Committee is the Question of Dover Harbour, and that it is not competent for him, upon that limited Question, to enter into the question of the distribution of public money as between the Three Kingdoms.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORQuite so. I completely apprehend that point. But we are asked to vote, out of the common funds of the Empire, money which is to go exclusively for services in connection with England, whereas nothing whatever is to be done for Ireland. I object to the inequality. We have a number of convicts in Ireland who used to be employed in the Cove of Cork. They might be employed in the performance of precisely similar services at Gal way and in other parts of Ireland; and I think it was in the contemplation of the late Government to institute some such services. Perhaps I may be allowed to call the attention of the Committee, for a moment, to the fact that on the coast of the county of which I am one of the Representatives — the county of Donegal—not long ago one of Her Majesty's gun-boats was lost, because there was no accommodation along that coast such as that which it is now proposed to provide on the Southern Coast of England. I would ask that hon. Members, before the assent of the Irish Representatives is given or even asked for to this particular Vote, may be informed of the intentions of the Government, not only in regard to the employment of convicts in England, but in regard to the public works of this description which are to be undertaken in Ireland as well, and also what proportion of the Public Expenditure is to be devoted to Ireland for this kind of service?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)I admit the reasonableness of the request of the hon. Member. It is only a reasonable request that the employment of convicts in useful public works should not be confined to England, but that employment should also be found for them in other parts of the Kingdom. I cannot, of course, say, off-hand, to what extent, or in what manner, employment on useful public works can at the present time be found for convicts in Ireland. A demand was made some time ago in reference to Scotland, and it was carefully considered. The Government were asked that convict labour should be employed in connection with certain public works in Scotland. I do not know in what state the matter is now; but we did consider that the application, so far as the harbour of Peterhead was concerned, might be assented to, and I 744 believe that works there are actually going on now. I shall be quite prepared to consider the reasonableness of employing convict labour in useful works of a similar character in Ireland.
§ CAPTAIN FIELDI would like to offer one word to the Committee on this question before it is disposed of. I trust that no further opposition will be offered by the Committee to this Vote. I speak as a naval man, and I can say that all naval men warmly support the Vote. The hon. Member who has just sat down complained that similar convict labour is not employed in Ireland. Now, I know the whole of the coast all round Ireland, and I must congratulate the Irish people on possessing already magnificent harbours on their coast. [Colonel NOLAN: Where?] I decline to answer questions that may be put to me while I am addressing the Chairman of Committees. The case is entirely different with regard to the coast of England. At the present time there is no harbour suitable for men-of-war to call at between Portsmouth and Hull; and it is of the utmost importance not only that this harbour at Dover should be completed, but that other harbours of refuge should be constructed. Naval men have been anxious to see the harbour at Dover completed; and so long as you delay its completion you can have very little regard for your first line of defence. I am sorry to see hon. Members quibbling and carping in this House at expenses of this kind. I should have thought that the first maritime country in the world would have been most anxious to spend money and do all that is necessary in providing harbours and coaling stations for its Navy and for its extensive Commercial Marine. Foreigners have been astounded at the apathy of this country in regard to the safety of the lives of those who carry on their commerce upon the high seas. We are a wealthy country, and it is ridiculous for us to carp about the expenditure of a few thousand pounds upon a harbour which would be of the greatest service both to ships of the Royal Navy and of the Mercantile Marine. I am afraid that if a great naval war were to break out this country would be in a state of great alarm in regard to its naval stations; and I submit that it is of the utmost importance to provide useful coaling stations in the event of war. Some day the 745 country will wake up to a true sense of its position; and I am sorry to see the opposition which has been raised to the Vote. I sincerely hope that it will not be pursued further.
§ MR. HANDEL COSSHAMThere have been two or three points raised in the course of the discussion upon which I should like to say a word. I have noticed how difficult it seems to be in this House to check Expenditure; and I would ask hon. Members who have made their first appearance in the House to assist by every means in their power in checking the Public Expenditure. I think there is no duty we owe to the country which is more incumbent upon us than that of securing economy in the Expenditure of the country; and that duty falls upon us with greater force on the present occasion on account of the commercial depression from which the country is suffering. This is not a time for naval Gentlemen to press upon Parliament the necessity of increasing its Expenditure. Naval men are only influenced by the fact that they receive a great deal more money than they pay; but those who represent the commerce and industry of the country pay much more than they receive. I, therefore, hope that the new Members of this House will back up the Government, or any other Party which tries to check the Expenditure; and I am glad to welcome assistance from the other side of the House in keeping down Expenditure for purposes of doubtful utility. Assistance from that side was not expected or looked for; and although the conversion of hon. Members opposite has been brought about late I am sure it will be hailed with satisfaction, and I trust that in future they will continue their assistance in the same direction in lessening the Expenditure of the country, and in making it more in accordance with the position in which we stand in regard to agriculture and commerce. I would seriously urge upon the House the duty of exercising great care in future in regard to the Expenditure of the country.
§ MR. GREGORYI may be very obtuse, but I must confess that I do not understand the purpose for which this Vote is asked. We were originally told that the Vote was only for a preliminary survey before we were asked to enter into a large expenditure for the purpose 746 of carrying out plans in connection with the construction of harbour works, which plans were to be laid before the House before the expenditure was entered into. As I gather from the speeches which have been made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) and others, Parliament has already sanctioned a considerable amount of expenditure in connection with these works. According to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets there have been two schemes, one of which is to cost £750,000, and the other £1,000,000; but I am certainly at a loss to understand whether or not either of those schemes has yet received the sanction of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that some £50,000 or £60,000 have already been voted for the purpose of constructing a convict prison at Dover for the accommodation of 1,000 convicts, who are to be employed in the erection of these works. We are told that we have already, to a considerable extent, by assenting to that expenditure, committed ourselves to the works which are to be ultimately undertaken in connection with the construction of a harbour. Under these circumstances, I think it is as well that we should understand clearly what it is we are asked to do. It is true that this is a small sum; but it may form part of a much larger sum, and what I want to know is, whether it does form part of a larger sum or not? I do not think that the Government have as yet given us full information upon that point. No doubt right hon. Gentlemen opposite have only been for a short time in Office, and they may have had very little opportunity for examining the Estimate and the services for which it is required; but I think it would have been well if it had been explained that the sum asked for is part of a larger sum, and if it had been indicated what that larger sum is to be. It ought certainly to be explained whether, by passing this Vote, we are sanctioning a larger expenditure or not. Until this is done, and we have some assurance from the Government as to how this Estimate is formed, and to what account the money is to be placed, I do not think we ought to assent to it.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)I have already explained how the matter 747 stands. I have stated that the erection of the prison was sanctioned in a previous Session, with a view to the ultimate construction of a breakwater in Dover Harbour. The prison itself will probably take three or four years to build, and after it is completed and occupied the harbour works would be commenced by the convicts.
§ MR. GREGORYWhat is to be the cost of the harbour works?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)At the express wish of the Treasury, the engineering works in connection with the harbour have been, as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) has stated, intrusted to the Admiralty; but, of course, what the House ought to have, before it sanctions the final amount of expenditure, is accurate plans of the breakwater, and au estimate of what it will cost. As the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ritchie) has stated, there have been two schemes submitted, one of which will cost £750,000 to carry out, and the other £1,000,000, which will give much better deep-water accommodation. Between those two schemes the House will, practically, have to decide; but in order to make the plans it is necessary to take soundings, to make surveys, and to incur a certain amount of expenditure in making them. Certain preliminary inquiries have to be made by the Admiralty as to the physical difficulties to be overcome, the nature of the bottom, and so forth. Pending the acquisition of this necessary preliminary information, no plans or estimates of the harbour have been prepared or can be made, or, indeed, will be required for something like three years. That is my answer to the question of the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory), what the money included in the Vote is asked for. The object is to enable the necessary plans and estimates to be framed.
§ GENERAL SIR GEOEGE BALFOURI must object to the statement which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted a Memorandum which has not been laid upon the Table of the House.
§ MR. JACKSONThe hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory) has asked what this Vote is for. I am, to a large extent, responsible for the estimated sum 748 of money which appears in the Vote; and I am bound to confirm what has been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the money is necessary for the purpose of preparing plans and making estimates as to the cost of the works before undertaking the construction of the harbour. Whether the House is committed to the principle of constructing a breakwater or not I cannot say. My hon. Friend has said that the present Government have not been long in Office; but he has himself been for a long period a Member of this House, and he must be aware that the House has already sanctioned the expenditure required for the building of the convict prison at Dover, and he must also know what the purpose is for which it has been decided to remove the convicts there—namely, to find them employment in the construction of the proposed harbour works. It has certainly never been the intention of the House to sanction the large expenditure which has already been incurred in connection with the building of a convict prison, unless it was also intended to use the labour which it is proposed to transfer. I can assure my hon. Friend that this expenditure is necessary in order to comply with the requirements of the Treasury that there should be an estimate of the total cost of the harbour.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREThis is one of the Estimates which I think the Committee ought to regard with a certain amount of suspicion. Whenever the two Front Benches agree upon an Estimate I think it becomes the duty of every independent Member to oppose it. But when with that union between the two Front Benches we have the Naval Members of the House getting up and pressing us to spend a little more money there is additional reason for opposing the Vote. I have listened attentively to the discussion which has taken place, and I think that it explains, to some extent, the manner in which the public money is wasted and squandered in this country. It appears to have occurred to someone that it would be a good thing, in a general sort of way, to construct a harbour at Dover, or to extend the existing harbour by building a breakwater. A practical man might be supposed to consider, in the first instance, what the cost would be; but I now 749 gather from the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson) that this is a Conservative Vote, and that we are asked, in the first instance, to pass the Vote, and then ascertain what the expense of the works will be. [Mr. JACKSON: No.] Well, I do not know that there is much to choose, in these matters, between one side of the House and another. Each is just as bad as the other. At any rate, some Gentlemen sitting on the Front Benches have come to the conclusion that there ought to be an extension of Dover Harbour. In such a case, what course would business men have taken? They would have ascertained, in the first instance, what the harbour would cost.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)We had a Committee.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREThey had a Committee. We know very well what that means. The Committee said—"Let us first build a prison in which to lodge the convicts who are to build the harbour." They spend a good deal of money—I do not know how many thousands of pounds—in building this prison, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us the Admiralty and the Treasury indulge in a little correspondence. Two plans were submitted, one of which is to cost £750,000, and the other £1,000,000. How were these plans made? The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us we must expend a certain amount of money in order to make a plan; but it appears that there was a plan made which was considered both by the Treasury and the Admiralty.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREA year ago, and yet it is necessary now to make surveys and soundings and borings, in order to decide how to make this harbour. I suppose the Committee, before they arrived at a decision, had some sort of evidence before them, and there must have been plans before the Admiralty and Treasury without these borings which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us must now be made. I suppose that these plans have been put away in some pigeon-hole and forgotten; and now we are to begin all over again in order to prepare soundings and plans. We are told that some labourers have been hired, some offices obtained, and 750 we are asked to pass the salary of a foreman of works. But, at present, we do not know what the plans are to cost. Let us have something clearly before us in order to show us what we are pledged to before we pass this Vote. Let us have some sufficient data as to the soundings and borings in order that we may ascertain approximately what the harbour will cost. As this is almost the first Vote proposed in the new Parliament, I think that we ought to inaugurate our opinion of officialdom by at once voting against it.
COLONEL NOLANI want to point out one thing in regard to which the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ritchie) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer appear to be agreed. What I complain of is the way in which the Estimates are presented to Parliament. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have told us that this Estimate is not for the harbour; and yet we are asked to vote an Estimate "of the amount required in the year 1886 towards the expense of constructing a new harbour at Dover." A Vote of £300 is hardly worth discussing if it were not for the fact that it may be taken to have pledged the country to the construction of a harbour. I was one of the Committee which sat to inquire into the question of constructing harbours of refuge; and it was clearly pointed out that several harbours of refuge are required, not only at Dover, useful as a harbour may be there, not only as a naval station, but as a harbour of refuge, and also in other situations along the coasts of the Three Kingdoms. I am not going to propose that Parliament should spend the money of the country in constructing the harbours of refuge recommended by the Committee; but the point I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to is that point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Eastern Division of Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor) that the Committee proposed several harbours for Ireland as well as for England. But what happened? I suppose that the late Government are responsible for it; but the late Government last year proposed an Estimate for a harbour at Peterhead, in Scotland, and the late Government adopted it, and passed it. The new Government have now intro- 751 duced another Estimate, and the late Government are going to support it. Both Parties adopt the same course. One Party submits an Estimate, and the other passes it. Already a sum of £600,000 or £700,000 has, I believe, been voted for the harbour works at Peterhead. I do not at all object to that, because I believe that it will be a very useful work. These harbour works at Dover are to cost £1,000,000. But the harbours of Ireland have had no attention paid to them at all; and when we put a Question upon the subject to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer he told us that he had not yet made up his mind about it. I allude to the proposal which has been made for employing convicts at Galway, in regard to which a Question was put to the Government by my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor). I maintain that the Government ought to make up their minds upon the matter. The position of Galway Harbour is, I apprehend, very similar to that of Peterhead; but Her Majesty's Government have already gone to a large expenditure in Scotland, while they have entirely neglected the interests of Ireland. I am not against the principle of providing Scotland with harbours of refuge; but I think that the Government, having put down £750,000 for Peterhead, should putdown £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 for Dover, instead of this miserable sum of £300, and should then make provision for the construction of similar works at Galway. The hon. and gallant Member for South Sussex (Captain Field) told the Committee that there are plenty of harbours on the West Coast of Ireland; but when I challenged him he was unable to point out one really good harbour. If he will study the Report of the Committee on Harbours of Refuge, he will see that although there may be plenty of good roads and bays there is not one really adequate harbour.
§ MR. C. H. WILSONThis question of harbour accommodation upon the Coast of England has been discussed repeatedly in this House, not only in connection with Dover, but with other parts of the Kingdom. It has been contended that the establishment of new harbours, instead of being of advantage to the commercial interests of the country, would simply be a source of ex- 752 pense, involving the outlay of a sum of money variously estimated from £750,000 to £1,000,000, and also lead the Railway Companies in connection with such harbours to damage existing interests by endeavouring to divert existing trades to a harbour made by public money. It is proposed to expend this money upon harbour works, which are considered to be altogether unnecessary, instead of giving relief to the taxes upon shipping. One demand has continually been made upon the Government by those who are engaged in carrying on the commerce of the country, and that is to relieve them from the payment of light dues. I would throw out that as a suggestion, and I shall certainly vote against any expenditure in extending the harbour at Dover. It appears to me to be a work that is uncalled for, and not required by the commerce of the country.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHI have listened attentively to the different explanations which have been made in regard to this Vote; and I want now to understand distinctly what I am voting for. According to the explanation which has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ritchie), the Vote is required for preliminary expenses—or for a portion only of the preliminary expenses. I think the Committee ought to know, before they vote this money, what is the total preliminary expense to be voted.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHI think that, at any rate, this discussion will prove to be serviceable in one respect. If it is said that we are to vote this sum of £300 without an Estimate of the total cost of the works, and simply as a preliminary step towards an inquiry which may enable the country to determine whether the enormous expenditure of money which is contemplated in connection with Dover Harbour shall take place, I think there is great force in what was said by the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that the whole proceeding in regard to this Vote is of a most unbusiness like character. The main question, what expenditure is to be incurred at Dover, is not before us; and certainly that is a point which ought to be considered, as well as this preliminary outlay involving soundings, borings, and the preparation 753 of plans. We are told that when these plans have been prepared and are submitted to Parliament, with an Estimate based on them, that then the question will arise whether a harbour at Dover shall be constructed or not, and that the erection of the convict prison is a secondary matter. Now, it seems to me that the House and the Committee have already been committed to this scheme by the course which has been taken with regard to it, and that they are self-condemned for an act of folly in having expended more than £50,000 in the shape of preliminary expenditure in connection with a harbour at Dover by the building of the convict prison. At any rate, the country is committed to the expenditure of this £50,000; but let it be clearly understood, from the Front Bench, that it is committed to nothing beyond that sum, and that we shall hereafter be able to go into the whole of this question, without reference to this paltry Vote, as to whether the harbour is to be built or not. I do not think it would be wise to object to a Vote of this character, which I take to be absolutely necessary before an Estimate of the total expense, worthy of the consideration of the House, can be prepared. There must be a preliminary investigation by taking the necessary soundings and borings; and I would remind the Committee that only in too many cases the country has been involved in double the outlay suggested when the original Estimates were given.
§ MR. JOHNSI am sorry to find myself obliged to differ from several of the hon. Members who have spoken on this—the Liberal—side of the House. It seems to me that, as the two Front Benches have agreed, that fact has rendered it more necessary that the work should be proceeded with. It appears also to have been agreed many years ago that this harbour ought to be constructed. ["No!"] Pardon me for saying so; but if that were not the fact the erection of a convict prison in this position would have been an absurdity. I maintain that no Government would ever have thought of placing a convict prison at Dover, unless it was for the purpose which has been described from the two Front Benches—namely, the employment of the convicts upon the construction of these great works. Although we may appear to be very economical 754 in the face of the country, I am afraid that we are certainly very wasteful of the time of the House, and that hon. Members have been occupying the valuable time of the House in an unreasonable manner this evening. As a practical man I have had much to do with the expenditure of money upon public works; and I say that it is impossible for anybody to know even what the preliminary expenses of a work of this description will amount to. You must go on piece by piece, and it is only as you discover what the soundings and what the borings and the physical difficulties are that you can, for a moment, arrive at anything like what your permanent Estimate is to be. And I may tell the Committee, further, that after a permanent Estimate has been arrived at it is certain that it will be exceeded in the natural course of events. No engineer, however eminent he may be, has ever executed a large work of this character within his estimates. Ho cannot do it. He can only do the best possible; and as the two Front Benches have agreed that this work ought to be done, it follows that the money required for the preparation of plans should be voted without any more discussion. I do not agree with the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that as the two Front Benches are agreed upon this matter we ought to disagree and reject the Vote. If that is to be the case, we had better do away with the two Front Benches altogether, and leave the independent Members of the House to conduct the whole of the Business of the country. I trust that the Vote will be agreed to at once, as it affords the only possible and practical mode of dealing with the question.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT)I should like to say a word or two before this discussion closes. As to the question whether the House of Commons have agreed to the policy of constructing a harbour of refuge at Dover, I believe that that question was settled by the last Parliament, and that that decision was only come to after very careful consideration had been given to the subject by a Committee of this House. After that consideration it was decided, not only by the Home Office, but by the Admiralty and Treasury, that a commencement might 755 be made at Dover in the arrangements that were necessary for carrying out this great work. With respect to that portion of the expenditure which relates to making provision for the accommodation of the convicts, that has already, I believe, been passed by the House of Commons; and the policy involved in the erection of the convict prison has been agreed to by the House. I myself remember a discussion upon this question when it was decided that, owing to the fact that the works carried on by the convicts at Chatham and Portsmouth being likely to come to an end in the course of two or three years, it was desirable to find other work for the convicts in some other place. Upon that occasion it was decided that the convict establishments ought to be transferred from Chatham and Portsmouth to Dover, for the purpose of being employed upon the proposed harbour works. The expenditure of the £300 now before the Committee—and probably a further sum may be asked for in the Estimates of next year—is really an economical proceeding. It is meant to obtain information before you decide upon spending your money; and I think, upon this ground, that it is a very proper thing to vote this £300, and also any further expenditure that may be asked for in order to obtain proper and full information. If the Government were to begin with any proposal for expenditure upon a work of this kind without taking borings and soundings, and deciding what the nature of the works for the harbour of refuge was to be, they might be open to blame for making such a proposal. But what is proposed to be done is simply to obtain information in order to enable the Admiralty to prepare plans, and to have an Estimate made as to what the cost of the works will be. When those plans shall have been prepared, and the Estimate laid upon the Table of the House, the time will have come when the House will have to decide whether they will carry out such plans or not. I believe that the proceeding involved in the present Vote is really an economical one, and one which the House ought to assent to.
§ Vote agreed to.