§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have, Sir, to ask for leave to introduce the first of five Bills, four relating to the drainage of the Bann, the Barrow, the Shannon, and the Suck, and the fifth to the construction of light railways in Ireland. I am sure that nobody regrets more than the Government do the delay which has occurred this afternoon in introducing the Bills. I do not complain that the hon. and learned Gentleman has called attention to the delay; but I trust that the loss of an hour and 20 minutes will not seriously imperil the future progress of the Bills through the House. The House will perceive that the programme of last year, which embraced three Drainage Bills, has been increased by two further measures, one for the drainage of the Suck and the other for the construction of light railways.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI rise, Sir, to a point of order. The notice on the paper includes four Drainage Bills, each distinct and separate from the others, and one for the construction of light railways, which is quite distinct from the Drainage Bills; and I ask for the ruling of the Chair as to whether the right hon. Gentleman can be allowed to discuss his scheme as a whole in introducing the first of these Bills? At any rate, the Railway Bill is quite distinct from the Drainage Bills.
§ * MR. SPEAKERIt may be for the convenience of the House that no objection should be taken to the introduction together of the four Drainage 1595 Bills, but certainly the Bill as to light railways is entirely distinct from the Drainage Bills, and I have already intimated that I do not think it can be included in the general statement. If an objection be taken by the hon. and learned Member it will be a reasonable one, and must hold good as against the inclusion of the last Bill.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI shall object; and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to introduce the Light Railways Bill first, and to take the drainage Bills afterwards, instead of putting first the Bills the Irish Members do not want, and putting last the Bill they do want.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt would have been for the convenience of the House if I could have developed in one statement the whole scheme of Irish public works, as all the Bills are based on the Report of a single Commission which inquired into this subject. But, the ruling of the Speaker is conclusive on the point, and as the hon, and learned Gentleman prefers that the scheme should be given piecemeal to the public, I have no alternative but to accept the decision of the Chair. The course imposed upon me will be highly inconvenient to the friends of the hon. and learned Gentleman in Ireland, and to all who desire to pass a general judgment upon the policy of the Government with regard to public works in that country. I will, however, ask whether I am precluded from dealing with the four Drainage Bills together?
§ * MR. SPEAKERI think the four Drainage Bills, having relation to the same subject, may be treated as one Bill, always on the understanding that, when the separate Bills come up, hon. Gentlemen will not be precluded from discussing the differences between the Bills if they think one Bill materially differs from another.
§ * MR. A. J. BALFOURVery well, Sir, I will confine myself to dealing with the four Bills now on the Paper, which I hope to be able to do with great brevity, as last year I not only entered at length upon the general grounds which induced the Government to begin their policy in this respect, but I also went with considerable minuteness into the details of these measures. They were printed and laid on the Table, they have been under the 1596 consideration of hon. Members opposite, and it will, therefore, be unnecessary to go into all the parliculars as I did last year; I will confine myself to a few remarks on the points wherein the. Bills now to be introduced differ from the,measures brought forward last year. The Bills of last year differed from previous Drainage Bills in three main particulars. The first was that there was a very large free grant from the Treasury in aid of local taxation; the second was that the ratepayers inhabiting the area over which the rate had to be levied in connection with the Bills were asked whether they would accept them or not, and machinery was provided for taking popular opinion on the point; and the third was that, while all previous Drainage Bills were commenced at the instance of the landlords and were managed by them, it appeared to the Government that these should be tenants' Bills, that all the charge should be thrown on the tenants, and that all the advantage should be reaped by them. With regard to each of these three main points, there have been some slight modifications required to carry out more fully the views of the Government. With respect to the first point, we have found it necessary to increase the amount of the free grant in the case of the Shannon. I do not gather that there has been any variation in the estimate of the actual cost of the drainage works of the Shannon, but it appears that compensation will have to be paid in respect of certain piers on the lakes through which that river flows. Moreover, it has been found necessary to throw a penny on the drainage area of the Suck in connection with our Bill dealing with that river. As we cannot tax this area twice, it becomes necessary to find the money elsewhere for the Shannon; and, therefore, we have consented to give £33,000 more as a free grant with respect to the drainage carried out on that river. With regard to the second point—namely, the popular control, under which these works are to be kept in future the Government think it would be better to introduce into the. Bill provisions under which each tenant, before he votes aye or no on the expediency of accepting our proposals, will know with tolerable accuracy what is the amount of benefit which he indi- 1597 vidually will derive and the amount of charge he will have to pay in respect of these Drainage Bills. Armed with that fuller information he may give a competent opinion whether he desired the Bills to be carried out. The Government think that by these means they have introduced a distinct improvement in the machinery of the Bills of last year for testing popular opinion in the matter. With regard to the third point, the exclusion of the landlords frond the purview of the Bills, the Government have taken care to carry out more fully the intention I expressed last year by making it impossible to augment the rent on any holding in respect of improvement due to drainage works. That part of the charge which does not fall on the Exchequer will be borne by the tenant, and it would be most unfair to allow the landlords to raise the rents on the holdings on account of improvements which they do not pay for. And now in regard to this last point, I wish to say a word in reference to the Amendment put on the Paper by the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare). The hon. member has embodied in his Amendment two objections to our proposals—the first is, that the drainage contemplated is essentially local; the second is, that it is principally for the benefit of the landlords. With respect to the first objection, I cannot imagine any scheme of drainage to be otherwise than local in its character; it can obviously be applied only to the area which has to be drained. Therefore, the objection is not merely against these Drainage Bills, but against all Drainage Bills. The second objection is founded upon even a greater misconception The hon. Member states that these Bills are principally for the benefit of the landlords. Except in so far as those who own land also occupy land, these three Bills do not affect landlords in the slightest degree. As I said before the Bills are tenants' Bills and not landlords' Bills; they are entirely framed for the benefit of the occupiers, and on the occupiers alone will be thrown the responsibility of carrying them out. So much for the three Bills of last year. I do not intend to waste the time of the House by entering into them in any greater detail. And now a word about the fourth Drainage Bill which deals with the drainage of the Suck. 1598 This Bill stands in an entirely different position in some respects from the other three. We do not come to the drainage of the Suck for the first time. A very large amount of money has been already expended on the river under different Acts, and it is impossible to consider the measure on all fours with the other schemes. The case of the Suck stands thus:—In 1878 a private Bill was passed under the general provisions of the Drainage Act of 1860. The original loan provided to carry out the works was, roughly speaking, £96,000. The history of these drainage works, though not unparalleled in Ireland, has not been fortunate. It is not necessary to dwell upon the circumstances under which it has become necessary to provide a sum in excess. It is enough to inform the House that under the new Estimate, which I have every reason to believe is accurate, the works will cost £160,000 instead of £96,000, and if the money necessary to pay the accumulated interest is added, the total amount required will be £185,000. To meet that an annuity equivalent to a capital sum of £13,000 is proposed to be levied on the catchment area of the Suck. That will be about a Id. in the £ on the valuation of the area, and that ld. will not, as I have already stated, be increased by any contribution dealing with the general drainage of the Shannon. Then I propose to ask the tenants to pay a terminable annuity for 40 years, equivalent to the advantage they will obtain from the increased annual value of their holdings—
§ MR. T. M. HEALYAssessed by the Board of Works?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAssessed, no doubt, by the Board of Works as it is. under the existing Act. The augmentation in the amount of the money required to carry out the provision of that Bill will. in no sense augment the charge on the, tenants. On the contrary, whereas under the private Bill of 1878 the. tenants were to pay the full increased value of their holdings for ever, they will now pay only an annuity for 40, years, after which they will become the absolute owners of the improvements effected by the drainage. In. addition to that, the Government propose to give. a free grant from the Treasury of £50,000, and the remaining charge will be thrown. upon the landowners who,- 1599 made themselves responsible for the Act of 1878. They will share the responsibility of maintaining the works for all time—
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWill the whole maintenance fall upon the landlords?
§ * MR. A. J. BALFOURYes. I may be asked why the Government think it necessary to come forward with a contribution of £50,000 from the Treasury to make up for either the misfortune or the mismanagement which made the original loan of £96,000 inadequate. The reason is that a great deal of progress has been made in the works, and that progress would be almost entirely wasted unless the works were completed. And not only so, but if the works are now abandoned, as they must be unless the Treasury comes forward and assists, there would be a great waste of money if they were ever to be resumed. It is of the greatest importance, if the drainages to be dealt with at all that we should not allow a breach of continuity in carrying on the Works. I quite admit that, the works having been started by the landlords, the landlords should bear part of the loss, which presumably is due to management for which they have been responsible. In fact a great additional charge will be put on the landlords; but what the Government have insisted on is that no additional charge should be placed on the tenants. The Bill no doubt does give relief to the landlords, not however at the expense of the tenants, but at the expense of the Exchequer. I have now accurately explained the four Drainage Bills which I have laid on the Table of the House. I conclude by repeating the expression of my regret that I have not been allowed to complete my survey of the whole policy of the Government by introducing the Bill dealing with railways on the Table at the same time as the Arterial Drainage Bill, and that I am obliged to defer my statement on that subject till a future day. I beg, Sir, to ask leave to read a first time the four first Bills which stand upon the Order Book in my name.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)What is the total amount of grants from the Treasury?
§ * MR. A. J. BALFOURIt will be £330,000 excluding, and £380,000 including, the Suck drainage. 1600 Motion made, and Question proposed,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the improvement of the drainage of lands and for the prevention of inundations within the catchment area of Lough Neagh and the Lower Bann; and for other purposes relating thereto."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI do not complain of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has made his statement, and. I think it would be unreasonable to oppose the introduction of these Bills. As to the statement in regard to the Suck, speaking of it off-hand at a first glance, and knowing something of the matter, it occurs to me that it is not altogether unsatisfactory. The Suck Board no doubt did a great deal in the past, although they have rather muddled things in recent years. They ought, therefore, to have some measure of control. But what is to be the popular control over the Board of Maintenance? The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to tell the House what measure of popular control is to be given. I understood him to say that in regard to the Suck the maintenance is still to be in the hands of the landlords, although the money will have to be paid by the tenants. The local landlords, especially the O'Conor Don, have fully recognized the necessity of giving popular control. Upon that point the right hon. Gentleman has not said a word by way of explanation, and I take it that the matter is to stand as it did last year. As far as I am concerned I shall give every opposition to a scheme which entirely divorces the people who have to pay the rates from all control in the matter, I think that the best way of dealing with the case would have been for the Government to treat it as a non-Party question, as a matter of rates and taxes. There is a fallacy propagated by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr.Chamberlain) and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) that it is the landlord who pays the local rates. A more gross fallacy never existed, and no change can make the least alteration in the incidence of the Grand Jury cess which in the long run always falls on the tenants. The House has not been told who is to carry out the scheme. If it is the Board of Works the money is sure to be squandered, and some other and more competent Board ought to be created on which both 1601 landlords and tenants may sit. They would get on very well together, and I am a thorough Tory in my anxiety to see the landlords properly represented on such Boards. I do not think that even the Ulster Members will pretend that the Board of Works is a satisfactory body to entrust with the administration. It may be said that there is no other, and that we have to pay for the sins of the Board of Works because the Government will not create reponsible administration in Ireland, preferring that the money shall he misspent rather than that it shall be spent by competent men under native control. I do not object to this expenditure of the public money, but I believe it to be a rotten system, and that we shall not get the value of our money. In regard to the Bann drainage scheme, you have already extracted from the people of the locality of the Bann thousands upon thousands of pounds under the foolish idea that you can carry on a system of navigation and drainage at the same time. The attempt to do so in the locality of the Bann has proved a total failure; £40,000 or £50,000 have been spent, and the only return for the expenditure on navigation has been about £40. What was the proposal which was made last year? Instead of proposing to put an end to the navigation, you proposed to keep up a system of navigation where there is nothing to navigate. Is the real work of drainage to be sacrificed for a shadowy scheme of navigation like this? The money for keeping it up is extracted from hard working tenants year after year, without their getting sixpennyworth of benefit, or having the slightest voice in the control. The Government propose now to reintroduce a Bill that will perpetuate the absurdities of this system of navigation and want of control. I think it would be much better to create a system of popular control upon which both landlords and tenants should work amicably together in getting rid of abuses. Upon Boards of this kind there is certain to be jobbery unless there is a proper system of control. What we desire is that the jobbery which has been perpetrated in the past shall be corrected by inaugurating a proper system of representation. The Bill of last year provided no proper representation, but 1602 simply a system of tenants' veto. What you do is to give them a system o: veto which is not a system of control at all. In my opinion the Treasury are anxious that the Bills should be blocked; they are anxious that they should not be called upon to pay this money, and that is why this system of veto is proposed. They hope the tenants may reject the scheme the benefits of which they cannot understand. The tenants will only know that if the scheme is carried out, they will have no control over it, and they have already had great experience of the miserable way in which the Board of Works have carried out all their work. I can understand the farmers on the Bann saying, "I shall vote against this scheme, not because I do not believe in drainage, but because I object to the Board of Works having the carrying of it out." I take up the position I occupy on grounds which I consider quite intelligible. I think I should have been wanting in my duty if I took up any other position. Those Bills deal with matters of vast importance to our country. Each of them will have to be considered separately and distinctly upon its merits, and it is not fair of us to allow the Government to introduce their scheme as a whole until we have had ample time to consider it in all its details, and in every branch of its details. The proposed railway system may be most excellent, but it is not at six in the afternoon with only three-quarters,of an hour more left to us that we should be expecting a system of the kind to be introduced. We have not had this year sufficient time to discuss any Irish Bill, and if this is the Union, I hope it is a Union relished by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is only reasonable that some period of the Session should be specially allocated for the discussion of Irish measures.
§ * MR. A. J. BALFOURWith the leave of the House, I should like to explain that the hon. and learned Gentlemen is under a misapprehension. In the first place, the Board of Works will not carry out any drainage scheme except in the case of the Shannon. That Board will not be responsible for the new drainage operations of the Suck or the works on the Bann and the Barrow. The Suck will be under the existing management and the other two 1603 rivers under the Commissioners. Although the navigation of the Lower Bann is to be abandoned, the water of Lough Neagh will be kept up to the summer level, and the hon. Gentleman is under a total misconception on this point. At least three-fourths of the electors who will elect, the members of the drainage boards to keep up the works on the Barrow and the Bann will be tenants, and therefore I submit that, whatever other criticisms may be passed against them, the Bills of the Government are not open to the objections raised by the hon. Gentleman.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, Mid.)As my constituents are very much interested in the Bann drainage, perhaps I may express their opinion on the subject. They have had an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the Bill brought in last year. There was some opposition in my constituency to that Bill, but the overwhelming voice of the people affected by the drainage was so great in its favour that the opposition was withdrawn. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Monaghan that it is the unanimous feeling of the riparian tenants that the Bill brought in by the Chief Secretary last year will confer upon them an immense benefit. I understand, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the navigation of the Lower Bann is to be abandoned, and that the Lake is to be kept at its summer level. I hope the House will never consent to the level of the Lake being lowered below the summer level, because that would place several very important centres of trade entirely at the mercy of the Great Northern Railway Company. Our object is that goods should be carried cheaply, and the cheapest way of carrying goods is to carry them by water. The Bill provides against floods, and at the same time that the level of the lake be maintained at such a height that the navigation which is so great at the present moment may be continued.
COLONEL NOLAN (Galway)I agree that these Bills should not be made Party Bills, but considered with reference to the advantages which they will confer on the particular districts concerned. As to the Suck drainage the proposals made by the Chief Secretary are of the utmost importance, and I 1604 think on the whole most satisfactory. I must object, however, to one method in which the money is to be raised—namely, on the catchment area. The catchment area may extend to the top of high hills, and it seems to me unfair to tax people who cannot possibly be benefited by the drainage. But even with that blot on it I am inclined to accept the Suck Drainage Scheme. I know nothing about the Barrow, but as to the Shannon Bill, I have very great doubts indeed whether it will be worth the while of the people to pay the money. I do not mean to say that the proprietors near the Shannon will not get value for their money. I think they will or else they would not vote for the Bill. You propose to put £65,000 on the general catchment area, and yet the people living within it will only reap a very trifling benefit,if any. I know nothing about the Bann except what I have learned as a member of the Royal Commission, and therefore I do not wish to offer any decided opinion as to the Bann Drainage Scheme. I am quite willing to take the opinion upon the scheme of the Northern Members against my own, because I am not locally interested. I hope, however, the Chief Secretary will give us some time to consider this question, and also the cognate one of light railways.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I should like to say at the outset that the reason why I propose it is in order to bring into common view an aspect of this question which throughout the whole of the debates upon these Bills last year seemed curiously disregarded by every one in the House, and that is the point of view of the ratepayers of Great Britain who have to find the money for these drainage works. A good many persons in the country, and I think the Chief Secretary amongst them, are under the impression that these Bills were blocked, and thwarted, and defeated last year by the Irish Members. That was not the case. I rather take credit to myself for having been the principal agent in getting rid of these Bills last year; and whatever may have been the opinion of the House as to the method by which I did so, I received the unanimous approval of my own constituents, and of a great many other constituencies, for the 1605 action I took to get rid of these obnoxious Bills, obnoxious from the point of view of English Members. I cannot understand, except upon matters of pure detail, why any Irish Member on either side of the House should raise a note of objection to these Bills, because these Bills propose to give large sums of English money to the people of Ireland. I would not object to this country loaning the money to Ireland, although upon that point I should join in the criticisms which have been advanced by the hon. Gentlemen on this side, who question whether, even with the alterations and additions proposed by the Chief Secretary, the Boards of Works are the best authorities to be entrusted with large public works. It is not a question whether the Irish Members have any objection to these Bills, it is whether the people who have to pay the money have any objection. The Irish people, who have been downtrodden for centuries, would be great fools if they did not take whatever sums the English people are wise enough to vote for their benefit. Now, the Chief Secretary did me the honour to refer to my Amendment, and to accuse me of labouring under two misconceptions. He said my first objection against the Bills as applying to works merely local in character was a misconception, and ho added that it was a mistake on my part to suppose that these works were for the benefit of the landlord. I am not labouring under any misconception at all. I have studied these Bills as they stood last year very carefully, and I say my objections are bond fide and substantial, and are in no degree founded upon misconception. With reference to the first point, the right hon. Gentleman said these measures are measures of drainage, and drainage being local they must be local in character. He does not appreciate my point, and that is that they are local in character so far as they apply to Ireland only, and not to England. Why should my constituents be asked to pay large sums for people living in local areas in Ireland? We want money in this country. My constituents might very well come to Parliament and ask for large sums of money for the purpose of reclaiming lands in different parts of Cornwall which the landlords will not spend any money upon. I say we have 1606 no right to ask for free grants of public money, except for Imperial purposes. Then the right hon. Gentleman says it is a misconception to suppose that these Bills will tend chiefly to the benefit of the landlords. I reply that unless you fix the rents to be paid by the tenants for all time you cannot help the benefit accruing in the future principally to the landlords, and drainage, if intended for anything, is intended to relieve the riparian owners and tenants from being ruined by floods. I presume it is intended to improve the land, therefore the more you improve the land the more reason the landlords would have to raise the rents of the tenants. I do not think they would do so immediately. The right hon. Gentleman himself gives up his own argument and confirms my view, for he admitted the Bill does relieve the landlords at the expense of the Exchequer.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI was then talking of the Suck.
§ MR. CONYBEAREI do not care whether you were talking of the Suck, the Bann, the Barrow, or the Shannon.
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ MR. CONYBEAREYou are asking in each of these cases for English money for the purpose of relieving the landlords and tenants of Ireland—probably the landlords. According to the admission of the right hon. Gentleman relief is given at the expense of the Exchequer, and that is my contention. We are asked to pay over the money for purposes that have no international or Imperial concern. It is a sop to Cerberus, a bribe from the Government to the people of Ireland with the idea of staving off the evil day, of postponing the introduction of Home Rule, but the Government will find themselves mightily mistaken in their hope. I should not object to the money being advanced by way of loan, but I quite agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Longford, who confirms my view, that you would have an infinitely better chance of spending money beneficially and for the interest of both landlords and tenants in Ireland, if you gave the country, in the first instance, some definite representative system of local government, instead of setting up a number of little Boards here and there in different, 1607 drainage districts, giving them the power of spending money which, as they get it for nothing, will be recklessly expended. We have only to look at the memorandum prefixed to the Bill of last year to see how hundreds of thousands of pounds have been muddled away and wasted in Ireland by the Board of Works and other Authorities, and to show how dangerous it is to grant large sums of money for such purposes without the control of a strong Local Authority based upon national sentiment, and truly representative. Let the Government do the only safe and wise thing, grant a measure of local self-government, and the Irish people, through their representative authority, could raise loans without coming to England for assistance. If the Government are so ready to dispose of public money, and we are to be asked to vote away hundreds of thousands with a light heart, there are many works of an important character all over this country to which expenditure could be advantageously applied. Take one instance. About this time last year a deputation waited upon the President of the Board of Trade to ask for the expenditure of a quarter of a million sterling on Holyhead Harbour, but the right hon. Gentleman replied it was useless to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for it. When important works are needed in this country we cannot get the money. All round our coasts harbour works are needed, but we can never get public money for such purposes; but when you want to pacify Ireland, when you want to give a sop to the Irish tenants, then you give money without hesitation, and the representatives of the people look on with apathy and do not care a farthing whether they saddle their constituents with the barden or not. That is the reason why I object to the whole of those schemes, not on details but in their entirety. I am not going now into the question whether individuals, riparian owners, or tenants want the schemes or not; but this I know, that I have a letter from a tenant farmer in the Bann district, a constituent, I suppose, of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, and he says he has held- land nearly all his life, part of which is flooded at high water, but it produces an excellent grass 'Crop, and 1608 he assures me that within an area of 32 miles affected by the floods not one man in 20 wants this Bill to pass, and he urges me to oppose it. That is not the only letter of the kind I have received. I have had communications from members of Town Councils and others in authority to the same effect. So there is by no means unanimity in the districts affected, though I do not for a moment say there may not be a preponderance of opinion in favour of the Bills; indeed, I should be astonished if this were not the case. But as a representative of British taxpayers, it is my duty to object to any expenditure on the lines laid down in the Bill. On these grounds, and not from any captious objection to details, I now move my Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word that' to the end of the question, in order to add the words, inasmuch as the proposed scheme of drainage is essentially local in character, and tends principally to the benefit of the landlords owning the land in the districts affected, this House is of opinion that all such works should be undertaken by and at the expense of an Irish Local Administration."—(Mr. Conybeare).
§ Question proposed, "That the words to be left out stand part of the question."
§ MR. W. REDMOND [...]rose.
§ * MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member rise to second the Motion?
§ MR. W. REDMONDNot to second.
§ MR. BIGGARI second it.
§ MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)I only rise for the purpose of saying I hope the Amendment will not be carried, and for the purpose also of saying that there seems to be some misunderstanding as to what took place in reference to these measures last year. I have seen it stated on various occasions that progress with the Bills last year was prevented by the opposition of the Irish Members. That is absolutely untrue, and I am sure the hon. Member for Camborne will allow that whatever check there was to the progress of the Bills came from him and not from Irish representatives.