MR. FIELDI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that all the sewage works from Kingston-on-Thames to Barking are in the midst of thickly-populated districts; whether the Pigeon House Fort, was full of troops about the time when the Rathmines and Pembroke townships arranged to run their sewage through the Fort and deposit it in a crude slate into the Liffey lower down; whether the War Office offered any opposition to that proposal; whether at present the Fort is mainly occupied with old stores and a few 1577 sentinels; whether the War Office has received the Report of the Government chemists and leading engineers of the Kingdom declaring that the site selected for the treatment of the sewage at Dublin is the best in the Three Kingdoms; and whether, in view of this statement, and in view of the fact that the Dublin Corporation some time since gave Richmond Bridewell to the War Office to be used as a military barracks, the Government will now reciprocate by handing over the Pigeon House Fort to the Corporation, so that the main drainage scheme may be immediately commenced in the interests of public utility?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANIn answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that I am aware that in London the sewers must necessarily pass through thickly-populated districts; but the question here is not as to sewers, but as to the outfall of sewage. The average number of troops at Pigeon House Fort in 1876, when the Rathmines drainage scheme was introduced, was about 150. The proposal as actually carried out was at first opposed by the War Office; but as it was only a question of the drainage of two rich residential townships with a small population and a relatively large consumption of water, and as no question of open settling tanks was involved, opposition was ultimately withdrawn. When it was reported that the whole of the sewage of South Dublin was to be embraced in the scheme, the Military Authorities offered the strongest objection, and insisted that the sewage, in that event, should be carried out to Pool Beg lighthouse. The War Office only finally withdrew its opposition on the assurance of the Commissioners that they had no powers to include South Dublin. The question now is not as to the south of Dublin only, but relates to the sewage of the whole city. Pigeon House Fort contains some of the most important ordnance stores for the supply of Ireland, and its garrison varies from 100 to 300 troops. The War Department received the Report of the experts employed by the promoters of the scheme, and referred it for the consideration and report of the Army Sanitary Committee—a competent tribunal, which includes three unofficial members of great authority on these subjects, and whose opinion I was bound to take in the interests of 1578 the soldier. That Committee reported to me that the scheme was in certain respects unsatisfactory as affecting Pigeon House Fort. Richmond Bridewell was not given by the Dublin Corporation to the War Department. It was the property of the Prisons Board, which, when it had no further use for it, surrendered it to the War Department, under Clause 31 of 40 & 41 Vict., c. 49, Prisons (Ireland), thus saving the cost of its maintenance. Pigeon House Fort was purchased from the Corporation of Dublin for a sum of over £100,000, and more than £60,000 has been expended upon it, and it could not be surrendered without the provision of equivalent accommodation.
§ MR. HAYDENWas Richmond Bridewell originally built at the expense of the Government, or of the ratepayers of Dublin?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANIt was originally built at the expense of the ratepayers, and then passed into the hands of the Prisons Board.
MR. FIELDAnd is no compensation to be allowed to the inhabitants for the appropriation of the Bridewell by the War Office. Considering the enormous issues at stake, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get this matter settled?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI am doing all in my power to secure that.
§ MR. CARSONWhat was the price paid for Pigeon House Fort?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI have answered that.
§ MR. CARSONIs it not a fact that the letter of the Dublin Corporation has not been answered?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI have said that the matter is still under consideration. I cannot answer until we have the materials on which to frame an answer.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)May I ask whether, according to the Papers presented by the late Government, Richmond Prison is not worth at least £100,000? Is it not fair to the Corporation to remember that the Government have now got a splendid new barracks with three acres of land attached?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI am not acquainted with the circumstances attending the transfer of the prison.