§ (6.) £114.662, to complete the sum for Public Buildings, Ireland.
§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)The Government could not expect this Vote to be passed without some reference to one or two of the points involved, because if no question should be raised it would imply that everything was satisfactory in this Department; whereas the very reverse is the fact. I refer especially to the condition of Howth Harbour. The pier which has been erected, instead of being the chief protection to the harbour, has been not only no protection, but an injury to it. It has been contended over and over again that this pier has been the chief cause, or one of the chief causes, of the silting up of the harbour, and, consequently, of why the harbour is less fitted for the purposes it is intended to serve than it was 20 years ago. The Report, to which I have previously referred, speaks of a steam dredger for the deepening of the harbour, which dredger is to be kept in readiness, if so directed; and I want to know whether anything is to be done to improve the present condition of the harbour, which is disgraceful? In the evidence given by a gentleman well known in Ireland as a Conservative—Judge Boyd—one who has, with great credit to himself, for a number of years taken a strong interest in the welfare of the Howth fishermen, that gentleman stated in reference to this subject, at a public inquiry held by the Fishery Commissioners, that the state of the harbour was so bad that it was utterly useless for any purpose. Even a rowboat can hardly get in or out of the harbour at low tide, while ordinary fishing - boats, have to lie outside or inside the harbour, as the case may be, for some three or four hours until the tide comes in. Such is the present state of the harbour; and what we contend is that that condition is due to the action of the Board of Works itself, in two ways—first of all, because 20 years ago, when the harbour was to have been improved, it was done in the most imperfect manner; and, in the second place, they have made a pier which, instead of affording protection 882 against the sea or the silting up of the harbour, has actually facilitated the silting up, and prevented it from being a Harbour of Refuge in bad and stormy weather for the fishing people. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman) will bear me ont in saying that the present condition of Howth Harbour is, in reality, that which has led to the present condition of the fishing industry and the declining number of the fishermen of Howth. Steamers used formerly to come there for the fish; but now they cannot get inside, and the consequence is that the prices have gone down through increased competition, and the fishermen have suffered the greatest loss and inconvenience. There is a statement in this year's Report of the Irish Fishery Inspectors, to the effect that although the fish harvest last year was very abundant, it was of little or no use to the unfortunate fishermen, in consequence of the low price of the fish. That being so, I think we are entitled to ask the Government to complete the work they undertook, and make this harbour, under the arrangement for which they were themselves responsible, more fit for the purposes it is intended to serve than it is at the present time. As an additional ground for some relief being afforded to the fishermen in regard to this matter, I may mention that about 20 years ago a toll was levied on the fishing-boats at Howth; and it was stated, in an inquiry which took place at that time, that the revenue from that toll amounted to £600 a-year. Well, there is a sum of £300 or £400 a-year that is voted by this House for the maintenance of the harbour; and, in addition to this, there is the £600 a-year from tolls, and it is now stated that the Board of Works have not got in their hands as much as would clean out the harbour once every five or 10 years. I want to know where the £600 a-year goes to? As far as I can see, it is not expended on the harbour. All the expenditure on the harbour, as far as I can find in the Estimates, are the salaries paid to the Master and Deputy Master of the harbour, and any sums of money more scandalously applied I have never heard of. The Harbour Master is a retired naval officer, and he receives £150 a-year for doing absolutely nothing, the fact 883 being that his duties permit him to live about two miles away from Howth; while the Deputy Master, who receives another salary, has to discharge duties of so light and unimportant a character that he can afford to be away every day of the week but one. This, in itself, is a scandal that ought to be removed. It is quite plain that the duties of the Harbour Master might be committed to a man who would perform them for £1 or 30s. a-week; and, in that case, the balance of the money would be sufficient, after a few years, to conduct all those dredging operations that are absolutely necessary for the harbour. What, I ask again, is the meaning of that passage in the Report which states that there is at Kingstown a steam-dredger put in perfect order, so as to be in readiness if so directed? Is this intended as a joke? If it be, the Board of Works might have employed their time in a much bettor way; and if it be not a joke, then I ask what is it the Board propose to do? Certainly the matter is urgent. I have explained, as briefly as I can, that the condition in which Howth Harbour is now placed has led to a great deal of misery in Howth; that the want of access to the harbour has banished customers and lowered the price of fish, because there is not sufficient competition. The Liverpool boats would come if they could, but they cannot get there, and the consequence is that there are few buyers for the fish. This constitutes a state of things to which Her Majesty's Government might be invited to pay attention. Here is a material grievance, capable of being remedied; and as the grievance is one which the Board of Works have themselves occasioned, I contend that Her Majesty's Government are bound to apply a remedy at the earliest opportunity.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)I desire to support my hon. Friend in expressing a hope that Her Majesty's Government may do something in the direction he has indicated. I have had many conversations with Judge Boyd on the matter; and, as everyone knows, he takes the greatest possible interest in the welfare of the fishing population. He has described to me, in a way that would almost make a horse laugh if it could be told to him, what has been done towards the filling of this harbour. Why will the English Government do 884 these foolish things? All I can say is that if I could get 5 per cent on the job, I would undertake to run Ireland for half the money Her Majesty's Government expend upon it. Here is the Harbour of Howth lying adjacent to the City of Dublin, where fish is of some importance, and yet there is not a real, substantial boat-load comes into Dublin more than once a month, and all because you lot the harbour silt up, and allow the money intended for its improvement to be humbugged away by gentlemen connected with the Board of Works. I hope the Treasury will say that they will take this matter in hand, and, at any cost, endeavour to effect the desired improvement.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)It is, no doubt, very difficult to satisfy hon. Members who take an interest in works in a particular district that expenditure has been sufficient in quantity, or efficient in its application.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYGive us the money, and we will spend it for ourselves.
§ MR. JACKSONWell, I am quite sure if the hon. and learned Member had the direction of the expenditure the work would be properly done. In regard to Howth Harbour there has been considerable expenditure, and I do not think the hon. and learned Member has quite done justice to the Board of Works. We have had a great deal of correspondence on the subject, and the Board express the greatest confidence in the work done.
§ MR. CLANCYWhere is the result?
§ MR. JACKSONWell, there is the whole secret. If we are correctly informed, the local fishery has fallen off, not because of any fault with the harbour works at Howth, but because the herrings have left that part of the coast and gone elsewhere, and no amount of expenditure, I am afraid, will influence their movements. I am quite ready to admit this harbour is of considerable importance; and though it may be, and very probably is, true that there is no very deep water at low tide, that is only the condition of many harbours in England and Scotland, into which vessels cannot enter at low tide. I believe it is intended to make further progress with the work of dredging the harbour. The Commissioners assure me that the 885 sea-wall erected is standing the test wonderfully well, and that there is a certain scour going on that is improving the condition of the harbour, and, except for some slight silting up at one end of the wall, they have every reason to be satisfied with the work that has been done. With reference to the dredging of the harbour, I shall be glad to call their attention to it, with the idea of improving it as far as they can, and I will inquire into the funds to which reference has been made, and endeavour to have the dredging operations carried out.
§ MR. CLANCYIt is no matter what the Board of Works may say; they or anybody else tell you lies if they say the sea-wall is doing any good to the harbour at Howth. It is the unanimous testimony of all who are practically acquainted with the harbour that this wall is the chief cause of injury to it. It is simply a fashionable promenade; it has been concreted all over, and big stones are rolled over it into the harbour in stormy weather. I have myself seen at high tide stones, shingle, and sand rolled into the harbour over the smooth concrete of which the Board of Works are so proud. In truth, it is the general opinion that the harbour would be better without the wall. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs incredulously; but what I say is not an exaggeration, as the fishermen will tell you. Judge Boyd would tell you that he had to take his yacht out of the harbour.
§ MR. JACKSON:Surely, not on account of the sea-wall.
§ MR.CLANCYYes; certainly. There is absolutely more sand and shingle gets into the harbour than if the wall were not there. Its former condition was that of a big, rough sea-wall, with rough stones, which served as a sort of breakwater; but now that the top has been made smooth the waves roll shingle over it, and big stones come over it like balls at every storm. The hon. Gentleman says the decline of the herring fishery is due to the decrease in the number of fish. That is an old pretence; we have heard all that before. It is well known that the fishing industry declines at one time, and revives at another. Does the hon. Gentleman expect us to believe that it will be quite time enough to go on with 886 the works when the fishing revives, and when there are 200 fishing vessels outside waiting to get into the harbour? Do you expect the work to be done in five days or five minutes? It is not an argument which a sensible person, with knowledge of the facts, will listen to. Will not the hon. Gentleman give a straightforward answer? What does this memorandum mean? Is this dredger spoken of kept in readiness at Kingstown in expectation of funds going to be voted? What does it mean?—
In anticipation of funds being made available for the harbour, we have caused a dredger to be in readiness at Kingstown to commence work if so directed.Are any funds to be made available; or is it a statement merely to deceive myself and others who may be interested? If the hon. Gentleman does not give us some assurance that the work of dredging the harbour, for which the Government and the Board of Works are responsible, shall be carried out, I promise to give him as much trouble as ever I can on this subject.
§ MR. JACKSONI hope the hon. Member does not think that whether he gives me much or little trouble it will make any difference in the discharge of my duty. I should be sorry to suppose he thinks that would make the slightest difference. I shall do all I can to meet the just demands of the question, and what I believe to be the object of hon. Members. The hon. Member refers to the dredging; and it is only fair to the Board of Works to say that it is not their fault that the money has not been voted for the purpose; they have already made application for it; but the Treasury said they could not ask for a Supplementary Estimate on this account, and replied that the application must be made next Session, when, I suppose, it will be dealt with.
§ MR. CLANCYIs it to be put in the Estimates next year?
§ MR. JACKSONUndoubtedly, it is the intention of the Government and the Board of Works that there shall be a Vote on next year's Estimates. I think hon. Members may accept my belief of that intention; and, indeed, I may go so far as to ask them to accept my assurance that it is the intention of the Government to consider it with a view to asking a Vote next year.
§ MR. CLANCYIf, in my concluding remarks, I said anything calculated to wound the susceptibilities of the hon. Gentleman I wish to withdraw it; but it has been our experience, in regard to Irish matters, that the more we hammer away at grievances the more is the Government likely to listen to us. Too long we took things easily, sending an humble begging petition to this or that Department; but, as we kicked up no row, we received no relief. I hope I am not wrong now in assuming that an Estimate will be laid before us next year in respect to this object. I do not demand that the whole of the money should be spent in one year; but a beginning ought to be made next year in the necessary work of dredging the harbour. Do I understand that is the intention?
§ MR. JACKSONYes.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYNo one is more willing to admit than I am the admirable manner in which the hon. Gentleman discharges his duty as Financial Secretary to the Treasury; but even if we allow the credit he takes to himself for rectitude in his Office, yet rectitude is often improved by a little pressure. There are two questions I wish to raise on this Vote, and the first has reference to the quarters of the married Constabulary in Phœnix Park. We had a pledge from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) when he was Secretary that the erection of the married men's quarters should be stopped; but by some fluke during the Parliamentary interregnum these hideous structures disfiguring the Park "rose like an exhalation." The Park is so occupied with police barracks, houses for the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, the Under Secretary, the Hibernian School, and the ground is reserved for polo, for hunting, cricket, and all kinds of things, that if the appropriations of space go on there will soon be no room for the significant but humble primrose to raise its head. Well, you had a Vote last year for these married men's quarters, and here, again, is an item of £3,400 for the same purpose. Cannot you stop voting them money? They have their quarters; they are in complete working order; and I cannot understand what this expenditure can be for—it is a specimen of what goes on 888 all over Ireland. With a quarter of the money spent on these ridiculous married men's quarters we could have done some good. Why not hand over the disposal of Irish expenditure to a Grand Committee of Irish Members? Suppose it costs £6,000,000 to run Ireland, why not say to such a Committee carve this out to meet your requirements for Ireland? I think it would be a reasonable thing to imitate the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington—who has a separate Committee for inquiry into the expenditure of the Services, which, if I were an Englishman, I would not wish to see cut down—to refer these Irish Votes to a Committee. Then there is an item for the Chief Secretary's residence. We have had £420 for his coals, and now here is a sum of £900 for his Lodge and Garden. The Chief Secretary does not use it as a residence, and I understand he has sublet it to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. I am told that the Lord Chancellor is living in the Lodge. I do not grudge him that; he has my best wishes wherever he lives; and if he lodges there at the expense of the Chief Secretary, or if the latter chooses to let lodgings, I am quite willing—but why should we have to pay this? I may be entirely mistaken; but it is common gossip in Dublin that the Chief Secretary's Lodge is now in the occupation of the Lord Chancellor. If the Chief Secretary will not live in Ireland, then, why, in the name of Heaven, should we pay for his residence? I will not grudge him £420 for his coals, though I should like to know how much of this expenditure really goes up the chimney, and how much into the contractor's pocket; but why £900 for the Lodge? And then I come to another item for our old friend the Ulster Canal, contingent on the passing of the Ulster Canal Bill. Now, I protest against this grant to the Lagan Navigation Company; and I ask the Government, have they any expectation of passing this Canal Bill? It has been read a first time, and it now stands for second reading on the 2nd September, with a block against it in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who was never known to take off a block in all his life. There is, further, a note in italics against the Bill, that it is to go before a Select Committee. Now, have you the slightest 889 hope of getting the Bill through? If I move the discharge of the Bill, is there any reason why you should say no to it? And yet you vote £12,000 on account of this proposal—that is the total; for this year it is £3,000. Is it not absurd? What are you going to do with it? You cannot get your Bill, and this money will be thrown away. Why not promise to move the discharge of the Ulster Canal Bill, and reduce this Vote by £3,000?
§ MR. JACKSONWith regard to the first question of the hon. and learned Member, the quarters for married men, the hon. and learned Member says he had a promise from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) that the work should be stopped; but I believe at the very time the right hon. Gentleman made that promise, if promise it was, he was under some misapprehension—the work had begun under contract, and I had no power to stop it.
§ MR. CLANCYDo not give the money.
§ MR. JACKSONThat would be simply throwing away the money already spent; hardly a wise policy to pursue. Therefore I am afraid I cannot do anything in regard to that.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThe place is occupied; it is full of police; and little children of all ages have been there for 12 months past.
§ MR. JACKSONThe item, I think, is £3,400, and I suppose that is for work under the contract that will come in course of payment during the present year.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIt is finished.
§ MR. JACKSONIt may be finished now; but hon. Members must bear in mind that this includes expenditure from the 31st March last.
§ MR. CLANCYIt was finished long before March.
§ MR. JACKSONThen, I am afraid I cannot answer the question, for then it would not come into the payments for this year.
§ MR. CLANCYIt is most incomprehensible.
§ MR. JACKSONThen the hon. and learned Member refers to the Chief Secretary's Lodge, and seems to think that £900 is too large an amount. Well, it is an expensive place to keep up. Then the hon. and learned Member 890 made some joke about the coals. This allowance was fixed a long time ago, and I expect it really represents a great deal besides actual coal. And now as to the Ulster Canal. I hope the hon. and learned Member does not think that if the Bill does not pass this money will be spent? If the Bill does not pass the expenditure will not be incurred, and the money will return to the Exchequer; so in any case there will be no waste of the £3,000.
§ MR. CLANCYCannot you wait until you actually want it?
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIt is contingent upon the Bill passing, and have you the slightest hope of that?
§ MR. JACKSONWell, I have had that hope, and still I do not relinquish all hope. The hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar), I know, is very tenacious when he blocks a Bill; but I have heard this Bill urged very strongly, and, no doubt, so far as the Government are concerned, it would be a considerable economy if the Canal were handed over to the Lagan Navigation. From the Treasury point of view, it would be a reduction of expenditure if they were in a position to hand it over to the Lagan Navigation, where it might serve a useful purpose and they would be definitely relieved of an expenditure that attaches to their responsibility.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI think we really cannot leave this matter where it is. I will throw over the married men's quarters and the Chief Secretary's Lodge; but I must stick to this. Here is the Government going to devote £5,000 to the drainage of the Bann, and remember the Bann drains from Lough Neagh into the sea and this Canal cannot be kept up if Lough Neagh is reduced below a certain level, as reduced it must be, if the Lower Bann is to be drained, if the drainage is to prevent the valley being flooded. So you lower the level of Lough Neagh and the Canal runs dry. See how you are playing at cross purposes. What the English Government are doing I cannot understand. You propose to drain the Lower Bann, and you also vote money to keep up the Canal, which depends upon and cannot be kept up without the Lough being at a certain level. So you vote money for one purpose, and more money for another purpose in opposition to the first; and therefore it is that we are 891 kept here on the 2nd September to fight the Ulster Canal Bill, when the Lord knows we have quite enough to keep us here without that. I invite the First Lord of the Treasury to include this Bill in his sentence of massacre. If it passes its second reading, it is to be referred to a Select Committee. Can anything be more absurd? You expect to refer this Bill to a Hybrid Committee; you send out your notices, and I suppose you will have over Mr. Grey Vesey Porter and others, and the House is to be kept waiting while the Committee debate the scheme. Let us have a decided statement. I will forego all objection to the amount for the Chief Secretary's Lodge and his coals, and to the married men's quarters; but take out this £3,000 and move the discharge of the Canal Bill. It is out of the question to keep us here to discuss the Bill, and it is impossible to let this Vote pass.
§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)I hope the Government will not altogether accept the view of my hon. and learned Friend as entirely correct, but will have some regard to that commercial opinion interested in the passage of the Bill.
§ MR. BIGGARThis proposition to lend money to the Ulster Canal is exactly the same sort of thing, though on a smaller scale, as the land reclamations in County Clare. It has cost the British taxpayer £130,000, and not a penny has been, repaid, and now comes the question of lending £3,000 more to be continued in instalments for many years to come. If you agree to this, you create vested interests that will make it impossible without paying compensation to properly drain the Bann Valley, and the loss by want of drainage is many times greater than any value that can possibly arise from the Ulster Canal. The trade along the Canal could not compete with the railway. In addition to that, two Commissions have been appointed—namely, that of which the present Lord Derby was Chairman, and which reported very strongly against this scheme; and the fresh Commission of this year, which, I suppose, will also report against it. It seems to me to be a foolish thing to appoint a Commission to inquire into a particular case, and then, before you have a Report, to commit yourself to unlimited expenditure.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)I must ask the Committee to allow this Vote to be passed this evening. I must remind the hon. Gentleman who has just made an interesting statement with reference to this particular matter that a Bill has been before the House for a very long time; that the measure was introduced by our Predecessors, and not by ourselves; and that we are simply trying, to the best of our ability, to carry out the pledge given by the previous Administration. We are asked, to give up the Bill; but we are not greatly disposed to make concessions at this time, in view of the progress made in Committee, and we will consider to-morrow what we shall do with the Bill.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYAs far as I am concerned, I have nothing to reproach myself with in regard to my action in Committee of Supply. I do urge the Government to say that this Ulster Canal Bill shall not be proceeded with this Session. No doubt, there are a certain number of people who are interested in it. You could not take away a dunghill without finding that there were a certain number of people who were interested in the smell. Of course, there are people who have a vested interest in the Canal, and they make representations to the Government. But I am surprised that the English Government—the Government of hard-headed men that we hear so much about— should spend all this money on this rat-hole. I remember, when I first came into the House, describing the Canal as not being large enough to swim a kin-kin in, and things are now exactly in the same position as they were then. The Government ask us to allow this Vote to be passed; but they will not extend the Allotments Bill to Ireland, or pass the Belfast Bill, or do anything for us. It is not fair, under these circumstances, to accuse us of being unreasonable. I ask the Government, on this 1st day of September, 1887, to state that they will drop this Ulster Canal Bill. They have no hope of passing it. They have already yielded to the Orange faction of this House on the questions of Irish Land, Irish Government, and affairs in Belfast, and I would warn them that this Orangeism 893 may in the end cost them a little too much.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI told the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) that we would state this afternoon what course we would take with regard to the Bill. My reason for saying so is that we cannot say whether my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who has been obliged to retire, owing to excessive fatigue, has made any pledge by which the Government is bound.
§ MR. CLANCYThe item respecting furniture, which caused us to postpone the Vote, still remains unexplained. I find that £2,100 is put down for furniture for the Dublin Castle residence, £300 for the Chief Secretary's Lodge, £150 for the Under Secretary's Lodge, and so on. I could understand these sums being wanted once for furnishing the houses; but I cannot understand why they should be required every year. I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) whether £2,100 is required every year for the Castle?
§ MR. JACKSONNo, Sir; £2,100 is not wanted every year for the furniture of the Castle. I have obtained the details for this year, and I find that, of the £2,100, a very considerable portion is for items not likely to occur again.
§ MR. CLANCYA considerable sum is voted every year.
§ MR. JACKSONYes; and I am afraid that a considerable sum will always be voted; because the Vote is not for furniture alone, but includes other things, such as painting.
§ MR. CLANCYThe hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Under the head of "Supplies and Maintenance," there is a Vote of £2,300.
§ MR. JACKSONI am quite aware of that; but this year there has been transferred to the item of furniture, so-called, a considerable sum which formerly appeared in the item to which the hon. Member has called attention. I believe that £500 or £600 was so transferred, because it was thought it more properly came under this item.
§ MR. CLANCYWhat is the money for?
§ MR. JACKSONWell, it includes decorating and covering chairs, and it also includes dismantling and pulling down. It further includes housekeepers' and housemaids' salaries, and a great 894 many other things. It appears that there is certain inside decoration done periodically at the Castle, and that this is the year when it is done. It costs probably about £2,000.
§ MR. CLANCYWill you explain what the "maintenance" item is for?
§ MR. JACKSONI am afraid I have not the particulars about the maintenance. It appears that the £3,700 includes the cost of certain things which will not again be necessary. There is an item of about £200 or £300 which, it is said, will not appear again for 15 years. [Laughter from the Home Rule Members.] I do not know why hon. Members should laugh.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThe statutory term of 15 years.
§ MR. JACKSONWell, a great many things may happen during the next 15 years. It must be borne in mind that a great many repairs have to be done to these buildings. I suppose the hon. Member will understand that a place like that is not kept up without great expenditure.
§ MR. CLANCYExplain what the furniture is.
§ MR. JACKSONWell, Sir, the £2,100 includes the cost of repairs and furniture of one kind or other. It includes supplies and maintenance for the outside quarters, for the Chapel Royal, for the House of the Master of the Horse, for the Chamberlain's house, for the Controller's house, for the estate-steward's house, for the stables—
§ MR. T. M. HEALYDoes the kettle-drummer get anything?
§ MR. JACKSONAnd it includes furniture for all the Departments. There is, as I have said, about £500 which will not appear again. I have been through the items, and I can honestly say that the amount could not have been kept down this year. No doubt it will be lower next year.
§ MR. CLANCYBut for the lateness of the hour I would divide upon every item in this Vote. I consider that it is a perfect scandal. The explanation of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) can hardly have satisfied himself. The idea of paying such an amount as this for the decoration of Dublin Castle, when the Government absolutely refuse to pay a single penny to clear out Howth Harbour, is a shame and a scandal.
§ MR. BIGGARI would like to make a fresh appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject to which I alluded a short time ago.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHWill the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him for a moment? I wish to say that we will announce the course we will take at 4 o'clock to-morrow afternoon, and, if the Vote for £3,000 is not required we shall move to reduce it on Report.
§ MR. BIGGARWhat I say is, that the whole argument is that the present Government are acting upon an arrangement made by their Predecessors. Now, I think that, after all, that is a weak argument, because nothing has taken place which amounts to a contract, or even amounts to an understanding, as to the course which would be taken. I am really sick at heart to see what has happened with regard to money in cases of this kind. I think it is time that the Government should put a perfect stop to this system, which is really a scandal. My theory is that the Government might lend money at low interest on first-class security, but that they should not lend money on any pretence upon these shallow securities.
§ DR. TANNERI am unable to support my hon. Friends in what they have said respecting the Ulster Navigation Bill. I have been over these works; I have ridden on the Canal; and I can tell my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) that it is not only able to swim a kin-kin, but to bear a boat. I think that when the Canal exists, and when there is a possibility of handing it over to any Corporation which will take care of it, there is no reason why the Government should not advance a certain sum of money in order to benefit the locality. If it was doing a very great deal of harm, the Government would be sure to be waited upon by deputations, and to have a large number of remonstrances addressed to them from the localities. I think that if this Ulster Canal were opened up and dredged, and made fit for carrying canal boats, it would be very useful for such purposes as the conveyance of coal, and I do not see why it should not be made use of. It has been allowed to fall into disrepair, and, of course, the upper portion is not at the present time in a fit state for canal boats; but I do not see why 896 it could not be made fit. If this Navigation Company would take it over, I really think it is a very rational undertaking, and that the claim ought to be supported. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Government will see their way to vote this £3,000, and that they will not withdraw their Bill.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI hope, Sir, that the Committee will now at last come to a decision.
§ MR. TUITE (Westmeath, N.)I see, Sir, that the Vote includes an item of £4,500 for some police barracks in a small country town. Although the population is very small, there are 30 police in the town. Certainly 10 men could do all that is required. The sum of £4,500 for police barracks is certainly too much. Why, it would build a palace.
§ MR. JACKSONI see that there is only £1,000 to be voted this year. I will inquire about the £4,500, and ascertain really what the cost of the barracks is.
§ MR. JACKSONI am afraid I cannot say.
§ DR. TANNERI will take pity on the Government, and, as far as I am personally concerned, will make my remarks as short as possible. There are two subjects to which I would call attention. One is that of the Newcastle Harbour in South Down. I had occasion to visit the place not long ago, and I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. M'Cartan) to bring the matter forward. A great deal of money has been spent in building an artificial harbour at South Down; but a number of large blocks of granite having been employed to form the entrance, a quantity of sand has collected about them, and the result is that ships cannot get in. I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) whether he will see if anything can be done to remove the obstruction? The second matter to which I wish to call attention is this. A fishing pier has lately been opened at Ballycotton, in County Cork. Well, the wrong site has been chosen, because inside the pier is a whole reef of rocks on which ships have got aground on several occasions. I have been asked to call the attention of the Gentlemen in charge of the Vote to this matter. 897 These rocks could be easily blown away without any very great expenditure of money, and the pier would then be a very great protection to vessels which have to run into Ballycotton in stress of weather, and also a great protection to fishing boats during the bad seasons. I should have liked to bring other matters before the Government—notably, the case of Queen's College, Cork, but, as the hour is so late, I will confine my remarks to these two matters, and I will ask the Secretary to the Treasury to favourably consider them.
§ MR. JACKSONYes, Sir, I will promise to look into the matters.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.
§ House adjourned at half after Three o'clock.