CLASS I. (Hansard, 3 March 1893)

§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)
Does this Vote include the General Post Office?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The items are—Inland Revenue Building, Post Office Buildings, and Post Office Telegraph Buildings.

§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER
I do not intend to move the reduction which stands in my name.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)
I rise to a point of Order. I have a question to put which deals with an item prior to that to which the hon. Member for East St. Pancras alludes. Am I precluded from raising it? In the last Parliament it was ruled that, after an item had been passed over, the Committee could not return to it.

§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER
I am very pleased to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, he had simply a question to ask the First Commissioner of Works. Last year the sum of £12,000 was voted for the site and erection of a new post office in Manchester. It appeared that an additional sum of £2,438 was now wanted in respect of the site, and he wished to know whether both sums were to be expended in respect of the site alone. If so, the Committee last year were misled, it having been said that the sum of £12,000 would cover the cost of erection as well as the cost of the site.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
It is the fact that the sum voted last year and the amonnt ask for in this Supplementary Estimate are both required for the site.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
Then last year's statement that it was for buildings and site was incorrect?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
I think last year it was stated it was for the site alone.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
No; last year's Estimates said it was for a site and the erection of a new office.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
I will make further inquiry into this matter.

§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER
I find that a particular question I wished to refer to, as regards certain post offices in North London, does not arise in this Vote, and, therefore, I am precluded from bringing the matter before the Committee. I see, however, there is here a Vote for the General Post Office, and I think it would interest the Committee to hear from the First Commissioner of Works when the new works in connection with the General Post Office and Telegraph Department will be completed.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
I hope that the work will be completed within the present financial year. At any rate, only a small portion is likely to be carried over.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
I am not complaining of the present Government, but of the late Government, in regard to the matter of the new office for Manchester. The Estimate last year distinctly said the sum asked for was for the site and the erection of a new office. The Committee were deceived by being asked to vote money for new buildings and 983 site when it was to be devoted to the purchase of the site alone. I hope that another time we shall not be so deceived, and that this matter will be thoroughly inquired into.

§ MR. J. G. LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk)
said, that as a new Member, he had examined the Supplementary Estimates with the greatest care, and had noticed that the manner in which the sums voted for the erection of post offices was distributed was calculated to lead to confusion. The effect of the course now pursued was to make the Post Office surplus appear larger than it really was. Means ought to be taken to let the public know what was the real surplus of the Post Office. Many hon. Members were anxious to lay before the Postmaster General schemes for distributing the surplus, and the present arrangement of the Votes might result in their being misled. According to the particulars given, it appeared that if a building was bought ready to hand, the charge was made on the Post Office; whereas, if a site was bought and a building erected upon it, the charge went to the Board of Works. He believed that so as to place himself in Order he must move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £18,000, not, of course, for the purpose of preventing the money being expended, but simply to have it placed under the right heading from a book-keeping and business point of view.

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,) Bradford, Central
said, the hon. Member was perfectly right in saying that the Post Office site should be charged to the Post Office Vote, and only the cost of the buildings to the Vote under consideration. The same thing could not be said, however, of the Inland Revenue buildings, and it was thought well that the two items should be brought together in the Votes. In the original Estimate the cost of the Post Office site was charged to the Post Office Vote, and the cost of erecting the buildings to the Building Vote, whilst in the case of the Inland Revenue Buildings the cost both of the site and the erection was charged to the one Vote.

§ MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD (Cambridge)
wished for some information with regard to the establishment of communications between the Post Office and lightships and lighthouses. The Royal Commission on Electrical Communication with Lighthouses, Post Offices, &c., reported that when communication was established between a light station and a post office which was not constantly open, an alarm bell should be placed in the room of the telegraphists. He thought that sentence would render him in Order in bringing the subject forward on this Vote. If not, he should like to know whether on the Post Office Vote any sum was asked for in regard to the carrying out of the recommendations of the Commission.

§ THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.)
said, there were certainly no items in the Supplementary Estimate which touched the question the hon. Member had raised. There would be a Vote on the Estimates of next year dealing specially with communications with lighthouses and lightships.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)
asked how it was there was no Supplementary Vote on the subject. He had, of course, taken great interest in the Royal Commission, and, indeed, had been responsible for its appointment. The Commission reported in November, recommending expenditure on certain places; and he understood that some of that expenditure had been already incurred, so that it ought to have appeared in the Supplementary Estimates for the present year.

§ SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)
said, the case was even stronger than his right hon. Friend had put it. After the Estimates were framed last year, in deference to the wish of the House, as expressed upon a Motion moved by one of the supporters of the then Government, the Government undertook to provide certain communications with lighthouses, and so forth, on shore. The Commission only had reference to lighthouses and lightships; but previously works had been ordered, and to a great extent executed, even before the late Government left Office, so that a Supplementary Estimate was clearly necessary.

§ MR. A. MORLEY
said, two questions which were not identical had been raised. There was the question of communication between lighthouses and post offices, and there was also the question of carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission dealing mainly with lightships. A Vote of £20,000 had already been passed for the present financial year with respect to the first of these questions. That sum had, he believed, been very nearly expended, but no expenditure would be incurred on any of these services outside the £20,000. The Report of the Royal Commission was being very carefully considered by the Government, and it was intended that Parliament should be asked to sanction certain works recommended by the Royal Commission. No Supplementary Estimate, however, was needed for the purpose.

§ MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD
asked whether all works connecting post offices with lighthouses and lightships were to cease? He thought the House had understood from a statement made by the President of the Local Government Board that the works would go on this year, and that another winter would not be allowed to pass before communications with lighthouses and lightships were provided.

§ MR. A. MORLEY
said, it was intended to continue the work of connecting lighthouses with post offices.

§ SIR J. GORST
inquired how the Government were going to carry on the work if the money already voted had all been spent, and no more money was taken on a Supplementary Estimate. The Financial Rule was quite distinct: that no expenditure could be entered upon by any Department of the Government, or sanctioned by the Treasury, until a Vote had been passed by the House of Commons. In order to maintain the control of Parliament over the Expenditure of the country, it was necessary that the particular Department of State which was incurring expenditure should at once make application to the Treasury, and obtain Treasury sanction, so that expenditure might be approved by Parliament before the end of the financial year. The statement made by the Postmaster General was really to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman was going to break the law.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had gone a little too far. The Postmaster General had not broken the law, nor did he intend to break the law, because no money had been spent, and it was not intended to spend any money on the service in reference to lightships until next year. £20,000 had been provided for the present year in reference to coast communications, including shore lighthouses, and another Vote would be asked for next year, while a certain sum would be set aside for effecting communications with lightships and island lighthouses. Although the Government did not propose to the full extent to carry out the recommendations of the Commission, the money provided would enable them to do so to a very large extent.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
said, he would put himself in Order by moving to report Progress. In April last a Debate took place on a Motion brought forward by Sir E. Birkbeck, and the House was addressed, amongst others, by the then Postmaster General (Sir J. Fergusson)—

§ THE CHAIRMAN
If the right hon. Gentleman's contention is that there is no money provided for a certain purpose in the Supplementary Estimate, he is not in Order in continuing the conversation. The reason I allowed the Debate to proceed was that I thought it desirable that some information should be given; but I do not think it proper that the right hon. Gentleman should continue the conversation unless he intends to draw attention to something in the Estimates.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
said, he proposed to call attention to the way in which the Estimate was prepared. Last year the then Postmaster General named certain objects which he intended to execute at once, and said, "We have already put in hand the surveys of several of these works of the more pressing kind."

§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)
Mr. Mellor, I rise to Order. I wish to know whether it is in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to speculate as to what ought to be, or what might have been, in the Supplementary Estimate, when we have it on the authority of the Postmaster General that no provision is 987 made in the Supplementary Estimate for the matter referred to?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
It is not in Order to continue the discussion unless the right hon. Gentleman moves to report Progress in order to discuss the mode in which the Estimate is prepared. He has not got to that point yet.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
said, he was coming to that point, although he, of course, quite appreciated the difficulties in which the Chairman found himself placed by the interruptions of persons who were absolutely unacquainted with the practice of Parliament. His point was, that the ex-Postmaster General stated in Parliament a year ago that the Government had already taken certain steps which involved expenditure, and were about to incur further expenditure. He was glad to see that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were present, as they would no doubt appreciate a point which new Members naturally failed to grasp. The present Postmaster General said he was not going to spend any money at all during the present financial year. The question, however, was what money had been spent since the 26th of April last, and in what part of the Supplementary Estimate did such expenditure appear? He could only conclude that owing to the paucity of copies of the Supplementary Estimates, one had failed to find its way into the hands of the Postmaster General, or possibly the right hon. Gentleman had generously given up his copy to some friend—

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I must rise to Order. If the right hon. Gentleman's observations can be made during the discussion of the Supplementary Estimates, they must be made upon the Telegraphic Vote and not upon the Post Office Vote. This question of telegraphic communication has nothing to do with the Post Office Vote. I must, therefore, venture to say that my right hon. Friend is out of Order.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
I am not going to argue questions of Order with the right hon. Gentleman, whose arduous duties do not include the laying down of Rules of Order for our guidance.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
It is, of course, impossible to bring forward that matter 988 on this Vote, as it is not included in the Vote.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
said, his object was to protest against the way in which the Vote was framed.

§ MR. D. CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)
I must ask you, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I have already stated my opinion, but the right hon. Gentleman will be in Order if he moves to report Progress for the purpose of distinctly describing the mode in which this Estimate is framed.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
said, it was his intention to do so. These Supplementary Estimates had been framed, according to the Postmaster General's statement, in entire disregard of Parliamentary precedent. All expenditure not provided for in the Estimates of the current year must be submitted to Parliament in the form of Supplementary Estimates. In April last a responsible Minister pledged himself to incur expenditure not contemplated in the current Estimates, and there was no doubt that the money had been spent. This being the case, he wished to know what Vote in the Supplementary Estimates contained this expenditure. He desired to ascertain how much money had been spent, and how much more was to be spent in the same way. If the money had been spent under other heads, of course a deception had been practised upon the Parliament. It was, of course, most improper to expend balances in carrying out works which were not contemplated in the original Estimates; and if this course had been followed, the Treasury practice had sadly degenerated. In order to raise this highly important point, he moved to report Progress.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, the Supplementary Estimates had been prepared according to precedent and practice. No money was being used which had not been voted. The right hon. Gentleman had mixed up two questions. One of these dealt with coast communications, which had been under the charge of the Post Office authorities. For the expenditure on such communications, a Supplementary Estimate for £20,000 was presented to 989 the House in June last, and the whole of the expenditure that had taken place on coast communications had come out of that £20,000. The other branch of the question related to telegraphic communications with lightships and islands. No money had been spent on any portion of that part of the proposal.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
A promise was given that it should be spent.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, it was not given in his time, and he was not responsible for any promise given by any of his predecessors. As a matter of fact, no money had been spent illegally, and whatever had been done, had been done according to practice.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
I would point out that the Government has incurred a heavy responsibility in this matter. The Royal Commission, whose Report is dated December 8th, 1892, recommended that the Goodwin, the North Land Head, the Kentish Knock, and two other light-vessels, should be immediately connected. Although they had the Report of this Commission unanimously signed before them on the 8th December, Her Majesty's Government propose to wait until the 25th March before starting the work which the Commission said should be commenced immediately. Why is this? It is in order to save themselves from submitting a Supplementary Estimate. I really would ask the Postmaster General whether he is willing to incur such responsibility as that? It is obvious that, in the view of the Commission, the delay might involve loss of life during the current year.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
All I can say is, that the Government have considered the Report, and have made provision for carrying out the recommendations of the Commission. They do not consider it necessary to provide for the expenditure under a Supplemental Estimate. They are defraying the cost of carrying out the recommendations out of the money voted in June last. They are carrying out some of the recommendations of the Commission gradually.

MR. FITZGERALD
said, that on this important subject he wished to ask a question of the Postmaster General, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be labouring under a misconception. He (Mr. FitzGerald) had received two dis- 990 tinct answers of an opposite nature to each other. The right hon. Gentleman—inadvertently, no doubt, if it was not in accordance with the facts—said the work was going on. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury said the work was not going on. The matter was one of such vital importance that he wanted to have these conflicting statements put right. He did not care a straw where they got the money, but he wanted the Lifeboat Institution to be able to go on with its work.

§ MR. A. MORLEY
The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. In what I said I referred to coast communication and the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I said that coast communication was going on, and would go on, during next year; and that next year a substantial Vote would be taken for it. The other recommendations of the Royal Commission are under the careful consideration of the Government. The moment the Report came into my hands—and I do not think it was submitted till January, which is after the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—I communicated with the Treasury and the Board of Trade—who are more especially interested in matters affecting shipping—and the subject was then, and is still being, considered. There will be a Vote in the Estimates for next year which will especially deal with this matter. I said that as to lighthouse communication forming part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, it is of the same nature as the coast connection work, and some of it is actually now being considered with a view to being carried out without loss of time. But there is no money in this Supplementary Estimate which in any way touches on the subject under discussion.

§ MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT
thought there were evidences that the Government wished to avoid the discussion of this important matter. If there was no money in the Vote touching upon the discussion there ought to be; and if the right hon. Gentleman would go to a Division he would support him.

§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith, &c.)
did not think there was any necessity to go to a Division. As a member of the Royal Commission, he could say that all who had been on it were anxious that 991 something should be done to carry out the recommendations contained in their Report. The Report dealt with various subjects. One was the subject of coast communication, another fixed lighthouses, and another communication between light-vessels. Some of these communications were very simple to effect, while others were very complicated and difficult. Before the recommendations of the Royal Commission were made the Post Office had done a good deal in regard to coast communication, and more had been accomplished since. Some of the communications could be effected without great cost, and some of them the Departments could not well agree to without full inquiry on their own account. It would be unreasonable, so far as some of the recommendations were concerned, to expect them to be carried out until the Departments had satisfied themselves with regard to them. The Report was only presented in the last days of last year; and though the connections ought to be made as soon as possible, he did not think it reasonable to expect all the work to be carried out within so short a time after the Report was issued. He did not think there need be any great anxiety as to loss of life, because the opinion of several Members of the Commission was, that if the money recommended for communications between lighthouses and lightships could be spent in putting up new lighthouses, loss of life might be saved to a greater extent. Still, the recommendations were highly important, and he hoped something would be done to carry them out.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
I do not wish to press the Motion. I have elicited what I wanted. I wished to ascertain how the money was spent.

MR. FITZGERALD
said, the subject was one of great importance, as the circumstances of the wreck of the Dilsberg showed. If the lightships—the Kentish Knock, the Long, the Sunk, and Shipwash—had been connected, a great deal of the loss of life which unfortunately happened would have been prevented.

§ COLONEL BRIDGEMAN (Bolton)
said, the amounts for post office buildings and post office sites were in different Votes; and when attention was called to the fact, it was said that the whole expenditure was given in the Post Office Report. He wished to know why the Post Office Report differed from the Estimates.

MR.SHAWLEFEVRE
I did not say that the Post Office Report—I said that the Return issued last year shows the expenditure in the Post Office under all the heads. It shows what is the real surplus after taking into account all the receipts.

§ COLONEL BRIDGEMAN
Why should not the Votes for buildings and sites be put together?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
The usual course has been to put only the sites under this Vote.

§ MR. MORTON (Peterborough)
said, they ought to have an undertaking from the Government that in future these Votes be taken together, so as to save time and trouble and two discussions. The Committee should be able to see the total amount required for the buildings.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
That will be considered.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, so far as he could understand, there had been no Vote at all for this service—the National Portrait Gallery Building. He should like to know the exact position in which the institution stood. It seemed that owing to the liberality of some unknown person funds were provided for erecting this gallery, but at the same time Parliament was aked to vote £16,000 for that which was really part and parcel of the building. He had always held that the site selected for the gallery was a bad one. He did not believe in putting several of these public institutions together. London was a large place and he had always thought that it would be an advantage to London to have the various institutions for the promot on of culture and the study of art and the improvement of the people placed in different localities so as to form centres for radiating knowledge and culture 993 amongst the people. Would the First Commissioner of Works give them some details as to this building? Did he understand that the gallery was to become the absolute property of the nation?—for there was some idea that this £16,000 was to be a contribution towards the cost of the building, which was not to become public property.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
The hon. Gentleman is quite justified in asking for information on this Vote, which is a new item. It is one for which my predecessor is responsible, but I am very glad to be able to defend it. The House, I think, will agree that it is justifiable, and that if the Government had not agreed to contribute this money, it would have been acting unfairly towards the gentleman referred to as the unknown donor, but who is well-known as Mr. Alexander. This gentleman has very munificently offered to build the National Portrait Gallery. Mr. Alexander, two years ago, offered to contribute a large sum of money (£60,000) towards the erection of a National Portrait Gallery on two conditions: one being that the Government should provide the site, and the other being that he should employ his own architect. It was decided that the building should be erected on the site behind the National Gallery. I believe that Mr. Alexander himself wished for that site, but, for my own part, I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite on that subject. The question, however, of site has been determined, and I do not think it worth while to enter upon a discussion as to whether or not the late Government were right in arranging with Mr. Alexander for that particular site. The site having been settled, Mr. Alexander put the matter into the hands of his architect, Mr. Christian, who prepared plans. He had not proceeded very far, however, when it was ascertained that the £60,000 would not cover the cost of the building, but that £96,000 would be needed. Mr. Alexander said he could not undertake to furnish the whole of that amount, but he very generously said that he would contribute £80,0000—which was the estimated cost of erecting that portion of the building mainly to be used as a National Portrait Gallery—but he expressed the opinion that the Government might fairly contribute £16,000, which 994 would be the cost of the erection of that portion of the building necessary to connect the new Gallery with the National Gallery, and of constructing a new façade for the National Gallery. The late Government took that view of the matter, and most reasonably and properly undertook to provide the remaining £16,000. The late Government came to a most proper conclusion in the matter, and I do not see how they could have arrived at any other without being open to the imputation of being shabby and mean to Mr. Alexander. The Government have the assurance of the architect that there can be no possibility of the expenditure being more than £96,000, and that the Government can by no possibility be called upon to contribute more than £16,000. When the building is complete it will be put into the hands of the Government, and become the property of the nation, and we shall then be in a position to thank Mr. Alexander for the splendid donation he has made to the country, and we shall have a National Portrait Gallery most suitable for the purpose, and a very handsome addition to the public buildings of the Metropolis.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, he was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explicit statement. The right hon. Gentleman must not think that he (Mr. Bartley) was in any way antagonistic to the Vote; but inasmuch as it was a new one, and the public were not familiar with the circumstances, he had thought it desirable to elicit an explanation. The general public, he thought, would be glad that the discussion had been raised.

§ SIR J. GOLDSMID
thought that thanks ought to be tendered both to Mr. Alexander and the late Government for their action in the matter. It was most desirable that the collection of portraits should be properly housed, the subject being one which had been urged on various Governments for years past. The Government would have been shabby, indeed, to have refused to ask the House to vote £16,000, or even £20,000, if necessary, for an important building of this character.

§ MR. FREEMAN - MITFORD
said, that everyone who had heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works must have listened to it with great satisfaction. It 995 would, doubtless, add to that satisfaction if the right hon. Gentleman could tell them when they might expect the new gallery to be opened.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
It will be completed in about the middle of the next financial year — perhaps rather earlier.

§ MR. PLUNKET (Dublin University)
As I was in Office at the time these negotiations took place with Mr. Alexander, I rise to add my voice to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman by stating that nothing could exceed the generosity and the liberality with which Mr. Alexander has behaved to the Government and to the nation all through these transactions.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
There are one or two points in this Supplementary Estimate as to which I am anxious to ask a few questions of the President of the Board of Trade. The first item in the Estimate is a re-Vote in respect of certain works at Holyhead Harbour. Some alterations are being effected at the place where the steamers of the Royal Dublin Mail Company embark and disembark their passengers, and the pier is being strengthened to resist the western gales. Some of the work was completed two years ago, and three-fourths of the cost was taken in the financial year 1891–92, and it was estimated that the remaining quarter would be required in the current year. The re-Vote is due to the fact that not so much of the work was done in 1891–92 as was anticipated. But what I want to direct attention to is this: that the re-Vote appears in the Estimate, less certain savings, under several sub-heads in the Estimate for the current year. Now these sub-heads referred to certain very necessary expenditure indeed. There is, for instance, an item for the repair of Dover Harbour, another for works at Spurn Point—an important bulwark against the sea at the mouth of the Humber, which has been under the charge of the Board of Trade for some years. Spurn Point got into a dangerous condition, and Sir John Coode prepared an estimate as to the cost of the neces- 996 sary repairs, and he reported that it would be £1,300. At the time it was considered absolutely necessary that this work should be done, and done at once, for the security of that part of the coast. There must have been a considerable saving under that Estimate of £1,300, which has been devoted towards part of this Holyhead Harbour, because the total saving is £1,100. Then the other item upon which a saving has been effected is also for necessary work—namely, the erection of lighthouse keepers' dwellings in the Falkland Islands. Has the right hon. Gentleman got that £1,100 consistently with the proper completion of these works? I come now to the second item, an increased charge of £1,800—an unforeseen increased expenditure on the alteration and repairs to a new steam tender. For some years past some dozen lighthouses at the Bahamas had been served by a sailing tender, which had become gradually unfit for the work, and it was suggested to me that she should be replaced by a new tender which would cost something like £26,000. I went carefully into the matter, in which I had the assistance of the naval advisers to the Board of Trade. I preferred to purchase a gunboat from the Admiralty, which was obtained for a comparatively small sum. I was informed that £10,000 would be ample to place her in a condition to do the necessary work, and a Vote for this amount was taken. I see, however, there is an increase on that amount of £1,800. I should like to ask why that increase has been found necessary, if this is the last Vote on the matter, and if the work has been done and the steamer put on her station in the Bahamas?

§ MR. MUNDELLA
I have to say at the outset that many of these matters have not come under my notice at the Board of Trade, and none of them have been dealt with under my administration, but I will inquire into them. As to the saving which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to, I have to say that a sum is taken in the Estimates every new year for the construction of a new groin at Sperm Point. This year the engineers reported that there was no necessity for a new groin, as the old groin stood well. Consequently, the saving was applied to the completion of the works at Holy-head. There had also been a small saving on the works in the Falkland 997 Islands. In respect of the lightship for the Bahamas, it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that a gunboat was purchased, and that it was estimated that for a sum of £10,000 she could be placed in proper condition for the work in which she was to be engaged; but, as a matter of fact, it cost £11,800 to complete her. I am sure the whole thing was done with great care and economy, and that there was no neglect of work.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
I did not impute discredit to the right hon. Gentleman or his subordinates at all. What I want to be clear about is that any necessary work at Spurn Point has been done, and that any saving under that head of the Estimate for this current year has been incurred by the advice of the engineer, and not by any neglect of necessary work.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
That is exactly what I stated.

§ COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)
was glad to hear that the saving that had been effected in regard to Sperm Point had not been at the expense of any necessary work. In connection with this matter, he pointed out that for a great number of years the Board of Trade had interfered with the people on the coast, and had prevented them taking gravel for a long distance from Sperm Point, and if there had been a saving in the construction of this groin he suggested that greater liberty should be given to the people along the coast in respect to this important question of gravel.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
said, this question of gravel was pressed under his consideration when he was at the Board of Trade, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would not prove amenable to the blandishments of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken; for if that hon. Member's constituents removed this gravel from Sperm Point, a great national mischief might be done.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, the real Vote was for £1,500 for works at Holy-head. They were told there were savings under certain sub-heads which were for proposed works at Dover and other places. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned that certain of these works might not have been necessary. He objected to the way these Votes were presented. The Government 998 ought not to ask for £400, which was not the proper sum, but for £1,500, which they were really going to spend. With regard to the next item of £1,800, the increased expenditure for this new steam tender, he said the original Estimate was for £10,000, whereas it seemed that this amount had been exceeded by £1,800. Surely their highly-paid officers could estimate nearer the actual amount than this.

§ MR. BROMLEY - DAVENPORT
wished to know if this was the last sum they should be called upon to pay in connection with these Irish railways?

§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)
desired to know whether this sum was distributed over all the light railways under the Act; how much was going to be given to the railways for which contracts had been carried out by existing Railway Companies; and how much to the railways carried out by contracts direct from the Government? He also wished to know how many of these railways had fallen through, and the date of the probable completion of the lines? If the work had been stopped on any of the lines, he should like to know the reason of the stoppage, and whether the Secretary to the Treasury could assure the Committee that the Government were making such arrangements as to ensure that the work would be resumed as soon as possible in any case in which it had been stopped?

§ MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.)
said, he would like to know from the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could now inform the Committee on what date the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company had been bound to commence the work in connection with the Collooney and Claremorris Light Railway? He was informed that a great deal of distress existed in that district, that there was great anxiety owing to the want of employment, and that it was a matter of great importance that the works should commence immediately. The work would be of infinitely greater 999 value to the people now than it would be two months hence, when they would be employed on their Spring work. There had been a very great and unnecessary delay in the starting of the works.

§ SIR THOMAS LEA (Londonderry, S.)
said, there was also much distress in Donegal in consequence of the bad seasons. He should like to know whether this money had been expended, and, if not, whether it would be expended in those distressed districts in the West? Did this complete the whole sum of £600,000 voted by Parliament; and if it did, and if certain, railways were yet uncompleted, what was to become of them? He knew some years ago of one railway in Donegal which could not be completed for want of money, and the works went to wreck and ruin during the time negotiations were proceeding for obtaining the requisite money to complete the railway.

MR. T. W.RUSSELL
said, there was an undertaking when this Light Railways Act was passed that the line from Westport to Mulrany should be extended to Achill Sound. He should like to know whether that undertaking had been carried out.

THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN (Lambeth, Brixton)
inquired in regard to the railway from Headford to Kenmare, and asked whether the full complement of workmen were being employed on that undertaking at present. There was great distress in that neighbourhood owing to the bad times. He hoped the Government would at once put a full complement of labourers at work rather than wait until they would be engaged in agricultural pursuits.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
said, he wished to draw attention to a line in the County Donegal, which had been in hands for a very long time—that which ran from Stranorlar to Glenties. That line ought to have been completed as far back as last November. It was not, however, half completed, and it was very difficult to ascertain when it would be in working order. He had had some correspondence with the Board of Works with regard to it, and he had been assured that the contractors who appeared to have an interest rather hostile to the completion of the railway were now making every effort to finish the work, and that 300 men had been put 1000 to work. However, the last information he had was that, so far from employing men in any reasonable number or on reasonable terms, the contractors in question were only offering 2½d. an hour to men employed on the Glenties end of the line, and there was no prospect, of course, of their getting anything like adequate labour on such terms to complete the work within a reasonable time. He wished to know from the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would undertake to compel the contractors to execute the contract that they had undertaken, and whether he would enforce the penalties under which they stood if the work was not completed during the period up to which they got their last extension?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
Before I say anything with respect to the particular railways that have been referred to, I think it would be well if I said a word or two as to the amount of money spent and likely to be required for the completion of the various works. The total amount asked for to-day is £34,786. The necessity of that Vote arises in this way: In December, 1891, when the Estimates were being prepared for the year 1892–1893, it was thought that £510,000 would have been spent by March, 1892, and, therefore, the then Government proposed to ask Parliament to vote £90,000. It turned out that the £510,000 was not spent up to the end of March, 1892, and that the real sum spent was only about £475,000, leaving a sum of about £125,000, which was required to make up the £600,000 provided by Parliament. Parliament having provided £90,000 in the original Estimate has now to provide £34,876. The present Government adopted the plans of their predecessors, and this Supplementary Vote is to complete the expenditure up to the £600,000. I will just state shortly the position in which the fund is. The amount for which we are liable to complete the light railways is estimated at £1,145,000. Against this sum there is the amount provided under the Act of Parliament of £600,000. Then there is the power of raising money upon loan, and that has been carried out to a certain extent, and will be carried out still further. The amount available under the present powers for loans amounts to £376,000. That makes a 1001 total sum available of £976,000, leaving a sum to be made up (for which we shall have to ask powers from Parliament) of £169,000. We shall take steps to bring forward a Bill to provide for something like that sum, or perhaps a little over, so as to raise the necessary amount. I will now state the position in which the railways stand. There are 12 railways, and I will give the particulars of each. There is the Donegal and Killybegs line. The probable date of the completion of that line is June, 1893, but an Extension Order has been granted until the 24th of October, 1893. There is the Stranorlar and Glenties line, for the completion of which, by an Order in Council, the time has been extended to December 31st, 1894. Then there is the Achill extension, for which there is no Order in Council, but it is hoped that some satisfactory arrangement will be made with the Midland Railway Company in regard to that extension. The time for the completion of the Galway and Clifden line was extended by Order in Council to the 31st December, 1894. The probable date of the completion of the Headford and Kenmare line was fixed as July, 1893, but the time has been extended by Order in Council to the 17th September, 1893. The probable date of the completion of the Killorglin and Valentia line was also July, and that has been extended to the same date. The time fixed by Order in Council for the completion of the Baltimore extension was December last. The Bantry extension is now open for traffic. The Downpatrick and Ardglass Railway was opened for traffic on the 31st December, 1892; but in reference to the Ardglass line, I am sorry to say there is a dispute regarding a tramway from the railway to the pier, but it is expected that that dispute will be settled in a very short time. The time fixed by Order in Council for the completion of the Collooney and Claremorris Railway is the 31st December, 1894, and for the Westport and Mulranny line December, 1893. The Ballina and Killala Railway has been already opened for traffic. The amount required for expenditure upon these lines up to the 31st January this year was £706,110. The amount required from that period up to the end of March is estimated at £104,853, and next year a sum estimated at £271,000 will be re- 1002 quired. On the respective railways, with regard to which questions have been asked, I should explain that the Glenties line has not been pushed forward in the way that it ought to have been pushed forward, but we have taken steps to bring pressure to bear on the contractors. I may say, indeed, that we have brought considerable pressure to bear on the parties, for I understand the line has been very much delayed.

§ MR. CREAN (Queen's Co., Ossory)
What time must the works be completed under the contract?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
The Order in Council fixes the end of 1894. With regard to the Collooney and Claremorris line, the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company have had a dispute with a contractor, and I am sorry to say the matter is not yet settled. It is the intention of the Irish Board of Works, if it is not soon settled, to take steps to bring the subject before a Court of Law, and apply for a mandamus to compel the Company to proceed.

§ MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)
What is the dispute about?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
I am unable to state with any detail what the particulars of the dispute are.

§ MR. DILLON
Can the right hon. Gentleman give the date by which the railway must be finished?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
The date fixed by Order in Council is the 31st December, 1894; and with regard to the Galway and Clifden line, I may state that the Midland Great Western Railway Company have made arrangements with a new contractor. I have a telegram here which states that the Midland Company took possession of the Galway and Clifden line from the old contractor in July, 1892; that the new contractor, since appointed, has been at work for some time, and that the works are progressing satisfactorily. With regard to the extension of the Westport and Mulranny line to Achill, I have not obtained the details of the negotiations with the Midland Railway Company, but the Irish Board of Works are very hopeful that satisfactory arrangements will be made for the completion and working of the line.

§ MR. JOHN G. LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk)
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many lines of light 1003 railway have been opened in Ireland during the last six months?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
I cannot say how many lines have been opened during the last six months, but I can state the number of miles that have been completed.

§ MR. JOHN G. LAWSON
A Paper has been circulated amongst the Members of the House during the last two or three days with the object of showing that there have been 22 miles of railway opened in Ireland during the last six months. I presume that some of these have been opened through private enterprise, and the question which I ask is, how many miles have been opened under the Light Railways Act?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
I am not able to answer that question; but I can tell the hon. Member the condition of the various lines at present. Donegal and Killybegs: Length, 19 miles; completed up to formation level, 18¾ miles; permanent way laid, 15 miles. Glenties: Length, 24½ miles; up to formation level, 17 miles; permanent way laid, none. Ballina and Killala: Length, 8 miles; up to formation level, 8 miles; permanent way laid, 8 miles. Westport and Mulranny: Length, 18 miles; up to formation level, 16 miles; permanent way laid, 13½ miles. Collooney and Claremorris: Length, 47¾ miles; up to formation level, none; permanent way laid, none. Galway and Clifden: Length, 49¼ miles; up to formation level, 30½ miles; permanent way laid, 13 miles. Killorglin and Valentia: Length, 26¾ miles; up to formation level, 26¾ miles; permanent waylaid, 12 miles. Headford and Kenmare: Length, 19¾ miles; up to formation level, 19¾ miles; permanent way laid, 7 miles. Baltimore and Skibbereen: length, 7¾ miles; up to formation level, 7¾ miles; permanent way laid, 7¾ miles. Bantry extension: Length, 1¾ miles; up to formation level, 1¾ miles; permanent way laid, 1¾ miles. Downpatrick and Ardglass: Length, 8 miles; up to formation level, 8 miles; permanent way laid, 8 miles. Achill extension: Up to formation level, 8¼ miles; permanent way laid, 8 miles.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, they could only arrive at the conclusion that matters in connection with the light railways were in an unsatisfactory state. The Act 1004 was passed in 1889, and in addition to the benefits that the lines were to confer upon Ireland there was one motive which influenced the House very materially in passing the Act—namely, that whilst it would confer benefits upon Ireland from the commercial standpoint, it would also help the poople of the districts who were then in a state of distress. His hon. Friend asked the Secretary to the Treasury how many lines had been opened during the last six months. The Secretary to the Treasury told them that the Bantry extension line had been opened. That was about a mile long, and, therefore, it did not count very much. It was simply from the pier at Bantry up to the town. Then the Baltimore extension line had been opened, and everybody must be rejoiced at the fact, because there, at all events, a real work of utility had been done. But that line was only seven miles long, and, therefore, a great deal had not been accomplished in the four years. The Ardglass and Downpatrick line had been done, and that was three or four miles long.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
Eight miles.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, he had some scruple in mentioning that line, because he really did not know how a light railway came to be constructed in the County Down. At all events, it came to this: that something like 15 miles of light railway had been completed in four years, and this was the work that was to employ the poor people who were in distress. What was the cause of this? It was not the fault of Parliament, because Parliament voted the money. They were told now that the Railway Companies were in collision with the contractors, and that, in fact, old contractors had to be dismissed and new contractors appointed.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
I only know of one case of that kind—the case of the Galway and Clifden Railway.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, there was also the case of the Waterford and Limerick Railway with regard to the Collooney and Claremorris line. That made two cases. He wished to ask whether the Treasury and the Board of Works ought to stand this delay? With regard to the Westport and Mulranny Railway, they were told that it was hoped that the Midland Railway Company would do it. What had the Midland Railway Company 1005 got to do with it? He thought the whole thing was in a sad state, and that the Treasury ought to see to it, especially in times like the present, when there was a great deal of distress.

§ VISCOUNT WOLMER (Edinburgh, W.)
said, the Secretary to the Treasury had used the phrase "extension has been given by an order in Council" in connection with most of the light railways. What did that mean? It meant that the contractors had neglected to fulfil their contracts, and that they went to the Board of Works to ask leave to depart from their contract and the conditions they had agreed to by having an extension of time to complete the work, and all this while there was said to be distress in the western districts of Ireland, and men willing to work going about idle. He thought the Committee had a right to ask whether this large extension of time would not have the effect of entailing more cost upon the taxpayers. They had a right to know what the extra cost involved in these extensions was?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
None.

§ VISCOUNT WOLMER
said, he could not help carrying his mind back to the Debates when this question of constructing light railways in Ireland was before the House. He remembered passages from a speech either of the late or of the present Chief Secretary in which he stated that railway works in Ireland had been left uncompleted, leading from nowhere to nowhere, and that well-made roads traversed great regions of bog without any beginning and without any end. He felt sure that all parties in the House were anxious that no such disgraceful state of things should prevail in the present scheme of light railways in Ireland. Had the Government yet considered seriously how these railways were to be finished, and how the recurrence to the old abuses in the construction of railways in Ireland were to be avoided?

§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
said, he hoped the Committee would appreciate the benevolent views of the hon. Gentleman who took such a deep interest in the Light Railways of Ireland. He hoped they would appreciate how this subject had become intensified since the Government came into power. He congratulated the people of Ireland on the great interest that was taken in the matter by the 1006 Members for Tottenham Court and other places.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Member is out of Order.

§ MR. FLYNN
said, of course, he would withdraw, but he hoped they would appreciate the intense interest taken in the matter by these gentlemen, who only wanted to occupy the time of the Committee, and who could throw as much light upon the Vote before the Committee, as the noble Lord who had just sat down. The Irish Members very well understood the position with regard to these railways. The people of the localities who were interested in the completion of these railways were the best informants of the House, and he would beg hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen, who were Scotchmen and Englishmen, to lay the flattering unction to their souls that they knew nothing about the case, and that they should allow the Irish Members to go on with their own business.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)
The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said this was an Irish question on which English Members had no right to express an opinion. I may, perhaps, be allowed to point out that if Ireland gets the railways England pays for them.

§ MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)
Ireland pays every penny of it.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The Member for North Kerry, who usually poses as a financial authority in this House—well, I will not say poses, he is a financial authority—tells us that Ireland pays every penny of it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will get up and substantiate that statement, and if he does he will astonish every other financial authority in the House, and no one, I am sure, more than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury.

§ MR. SEXTON
I have not the slightest objection to state in a sentence how Ireland pays every penny of it. Ireland contributes every year to the Imperial Treasury £8,000,000 sterling, and after all the charges and costs of the Civil Service of Ireland, and all the various grants are paid, there are £2,000,000 left to the Imperial Exchequer.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
If the hon. Member bases his strange contention on the view of the general financial relations between England and Ireland, I should not be in Order in discussing it at the present moment. But I apprehend there is a measure before the House under which that question can, and will, and must, be raised in detail. The only other observation I have to make on that point is that a Committee for investigating this very question was offered to the hon. Gentleman by the late Government, and the hon. Gentleman, by means perfectly understood by this House, put off from week to week and from month to month the appointment of that Committee, so that we are now possessed of no definite information on the subject.

§ MR. SEXTON
I wish to say on that matter that for two years the late Government refused to put down the Motion for the Committee except under circumstances that would exclude the appointment of the Committee.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
If the hon. Gentleman means that the late Government did not, to the detriment of other business, give a day for the purpose of having a controversy on the question, he is quite right. Whether that was a legitimate or an illegitimate action on the part of the late Government I will not now discuss; but let me point out that it is precisely that same course which the Leader of the House proposes to adopt in regard to the Committee to inquire into the causes of agricultural distress. But whether Ireland gains or does not gain by the general financial relations between the two countries, every sixpence connected with these eight railways has been paid out of the Imperial Exchequer for purely Irish purposes, and English Members have, therefore, as good a right as Irish Members to discuss the matter, and to criticise the progress that has been made in the works. I am sure the Government are doing their best to bring the railways to a completion. They have great difficulties to contend with, as we had great difficulties to contend with, in the matter of the contracts with the Railway Companies. If my noble Friend (Viscount Wolmer) thinks it is in the power of the Executive Government to take care that the contractors and the Railway Companies shall come to terms 1008 and deal with each other in the spirit of Christian charity, I am sure he will find, if he puts them face to face, that that operation is not so easy. I do not wish to press the Government to give me any information upon negotiations now in progress, but I should like to know, with regard to the Collooney and Claremorris line, whether they can hold out substantial hopes that that railway will be finished at the time mentioned. It is one of the longest of the lines—nearly 50 miles in extent—and we have been told by the Secretary to the Treasury that not a single yard of formation level, or a single yard of permanent way, has been laid. It passes through an extremely populous and an extremely poor district; and I believe there is no part of Ireland where a light railway is likely to do immediate good and to result in the permanent improvement of the condition of the people. I hope that the difficulties will be soon got over, and that the somewhat discreditable condition of affairs—I do not mean discreditable to the Government—will be soon brought to an end.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
Hon. Members seem to think they have some cause of complaint against the Government for not accomplishing more than they have accomplished in regard to these light railways; but they must remember that we have only been in Office six months, and that the Light Railways Act was passed a couple of years ago. So far as I am concerned, I can only promise that whatever can be done in the way of pressure by the Irish Board of Works will be done to bring these railways to a completion. I am anxious that these works, which have been inaugurated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson), should be completed in a way which is satisfactory to him and to the country generally; and I hope that before very long we will be able to see these light railways, which are being carried out under great difficulties, opening up the backward districts of Ireland and doing great good to the country.

§ MR. JACKSON
I was surprised to hear the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Flynn) in reference to the action of Members of the Unionist Party on this Vote; for, whatever may be said of us, this scheme of light railways in Ireland is a thing that 1009 should be placed to our credit. Reference has been made to the increased Vote that is required by the House, and to the probability that a Bill will be brought in in order to increase the sum placed at the disposal of the Treasury. I think I am correctly describing the matter when I say that, although a Bill may be necessary to place at the disposal of the Treasury an additional sum, that does not necessarily mean there is any increase in the expenditure. The position is this: Parliament placed at the disposal of the Irish Government for this purpose of railways £600,000. There was a balance of a sum which Parliament had placed at their disposal under the Light Railways Act of 1883, which was also available. Under the Act of 1883 there were certain Treasury guarantees given to certain railways made in aid of the Baronial guarantee. We thought we were well within the spirit of the Act, if we were not quite within the letter of the Act, in treating as a balance available to us the balance that had not been called upon under the Act of 1883. Having considered this question, the Law Officers decided that in order to be technically right provision must be made for the largest sum that might ever be called upon under the Baronial guarantees; and although it may be necessary to take the full sum of the Baronial guarantees to give the additional power to the Treasury, it does not mean that there has been any excess of expenditure over the original Estimate. I was somewhat criticised by the present Chief Secretary, when he was in Opposition, for having made what he described as unbusinesslike arrangements with regard to these railways. I venture to say the right hon. Gentleman will not now rise in his place, and with his further experience on the subject question the arrangement that was made by the Government with regard to these railways. The arrangements made with the Railway Companies relieved the Government of all responsibility as regarded the construction and the working of these railways when constructed, and assured to the different localities the perfect maintenance in good order of these railways. The management also enabled the Government to rely with certainty upon their Estimates, and when it is borne in mind the difficult circum- 1010 stances under which the arrangements were made, all who look carefully into the matter must admit them to be satisfactory. When my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour), who was then Chief Secretary, was advised at the end of the Session of 1890 of the possibility of distress arising in Ireland, he came to me and asked me what could be done in the matter of pushing forward these works in case of need, so that they could be utilised in aid of the relief of the distress. I was sent over to Ireland to make the best arrangements I could. My right hon. Friend had decided, and wisely decided as experience proved, that the best plan was to try and make arrangements with the existing Railway Companies, both as regards the construction and the working of the extension lines. The position was not a very easy one. It was known perfectly, well that the Government were anxious to try and make these works available for any possible distress that might arise in the winter. I spent six weeks in Ireland, and I did my best to make a good bargain., I came back from Ireland, having made arrangements with the Railway Companies which involved the expenditure of £1,000,000 of money, and I say now, with the further experience that has been obtained, no one can question the wisdom of the arrangements made at that time. If you take the case of Achill, it will illustrate the difficulties. I had made an arrangement as regards Westport and Mulranny, before my right hon. Friend had his tour through Ireland. He went to Achill, and saw what he considered to be a prospect of great distress. He then went to Collooney and Claremorris, and saw there also prospects of distress. The people pleaded to him; he yielded to their entreaties, and came to me and said, "I have decided that this line must also be made." I pointed out to my right hon. Friend that there was no power to make this line; there was no Act of Parliament and no compulsory power to take the land. My right hon. Friend said, "Power or no power, railways must be made, and therefore you must find a way out of this difficulty." The only reply I could make was, that if it was insisted on these lines being made, we must make our bargains before we began to spend the money, and the only way I could suggest was that my 1011 right hon. Friend should find some solicitor who could go as it were with pen and ink and cheque book in his pocket, get the aid of the people in the district who were interested in the question, and by that means make provisional agreement for the acquisition of the land through the entire length. That course was pursued; lands were so obtained, and the works were immediately commenced. I was in great anxiety in regard to these two lines, because we had not been able to make arrangements with the existing Railway Companies for their construction or their working when completed. In the case of the Collooney and Claremorris Railway, let me say it is a curious fact, that whilst in 1891 we were told that it was a most urgent necessity that these works should be gone on with; whilst there were frequent questions in this House, and frequent applications from people in the district urging the construction of this line in order to provide work for the people in the district, we never hear a word now, although the works are standing still.

§ MR. DILLON
I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I have spoken of the matter to-day, and I shall certainly speak again very soon if these works are not completed.

§ MR. JACKSON
I make no complaint of the hon. Member. I thought he was exercising great restraint indeed.

§ MR. DILLON
So I have been.

§ MR. JACKSON
I presume that, having exercised that restraint and patience, he has not had the pressure put upon him by his constituents that he had on former occasions.

§ MR. DILLON
On the contrary, I am sorry to say there has been considerable pressure.

§ MR. JACKSON
All I can say is that the hon. Member deals very differently with the existing Government to what he did with the late Government. Why, Sir, in former times we used to think that the hon. Member put pressure on his constituents in order to embarrass the Government. But these were the only two lines about which I had anxiety. I was fortunate enough before leaving Office to see the contract finally made as regards the Collooney and Claremorris line. I should have been glad if the arrangement had 1012 been concluded with the Midland Railway Company for taking over the Achill line, because that would have completed the whole of the work in connection with these railways. I do not want to put undue pressure on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but I do hope he will do all he can to insure that the works in connection with the line from Collooney to Claremorris shall be put into active operation. They have now been standing for nearly 12 months. I hope no difficulties will be allowed to stand in the way, because I believe this line will not only prove to be a great advantage to the district through which it passes, but there is a possibility that it will also prove a profitable line. With regard to the difficulties that have been spoken of in dealing with the contractors of other lines, I should like to say this word in favour of the Midland Company: I know they have had great difficulties in connection with the Galway and Clifden line. The contractor who first undertook the work of constructing the whole of the line failed. This was no fault of the Railway Company, and they were bound then to look after completing the line in some other form. They are responsible for its construction; they can receive no benefit from the line until it is completed; and, therefore, there is the best of all guarantees, that is to say, their own self-interest, that the line will be completed as soon as it can be completed. From what I know of Sir Ralph Cusack, I am quite sure that whatever he undertakes to do he may be relied upon to carry it out and as early as possible. As regards the Westport and Mulranny line, I understand that it is in a good state of progress, and I hope the Midland Railway will take over the Achill line. It will be a great advantage, as it takes the line up to the verge of the population. It will also prove not only to be a relief as regards Achill itself, but I believe it is within easy reach of Belmullet, because practically within two hours' sail from Belmullet to Achill Sound, and I shall be very much surprised if instead of the traffic from the district of Belmullet travelling 40 miles practically across the bog to Ballina, it will not come down through Blacksod Bay to Achill Sound and take the railway there. I am glad to 1013 hear that several of these lines have been completed. I think that all that is necessary for me to say with regard to the Stranorlar and Glenties line is that I understand it is now making progress. There was a little difficulty with the contractor, but that has now been overcome. The Killybegs line is nearly completed, and is to be finished by June, 1893. I wish to point out that any gratitude that the Irish people may feel for the carrying out and construction of these railways is due to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour), who alone is responsible for the initiation of this great work.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
expressed the opinion that the Midland Railway Company and the Great Eastern Railway Company would bitterly regret the bargains they had made with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson), which would turn out to be most unfair to themselves and their shareholders.

§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)
said it would conduce to facilitate the business of the House if hon. Members adopted a less offensive tone. The hon. Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn) had used some offensive expressions, and had followed what seemed to be a policy of shouting down and preventing free expression of speech by the Members of the Unionist Party. This hon. Member represented as new-born zeal the favourable consideration on the part of Unionist Members, not only of Irish railways, but of every effort to assist the want of labour and the necessity and distress in Ireland. Hon. Members who recollected the origin of these light railways would remember that the opposition to them came from hon. Members opposite, and that the very Members whom the Member for North Cork had taken to task in such offensive terms were the very Members who were most anxious to press them forward, and who did press them forward, in spite of those who, one would think, ought to have been the first to forward any measure for the alleviation of distress. Even the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Timothy Healy) voted against these light railways in Ireland, and he (Mr. Collings) remembered the anxiety and perseverance which the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour) practised in furthering these works, even sitting up all night to resist the opposition of the very Members—or 1014 many of them—who were now charging the Unionists with a new-born zeal in giving what he ventured to say was the true relief to Ireland. He did not know whether the Secretary to the Treasury had any power over his friends and allies, but he might take it from them (the Unionists) that they were not going to be dragooned, much less insulted by hon. Members opposite. If they continued their present course, with them must rest the responsibility for the delay in business. They (the Unionists) repudiated the assertion that their zeal was new born in favour of these light railways, or in favour of any other means for the relief of Irish distress, and he thought they ought to make it clear, both to the hon. Members opposite and to the Government itself, that they were going to have free discussion, and were not going to be muzzled, especially by a Government that relied for its majority on hon. Members opposite.

§ MR. V. GIBBS (Herts, St. Albans)
asked what arrangement had been made for the re-adjustment of this expenditure by the House to complete these railways in the event of the Home Rule Bill passing? That might be an improbable event, but hon. Members opposite still contemplated it as a possibility, and it was not an encouraging outlook for the future if, when they asked reasonable questions as to money voted by that House at the instance of the late Government mainly for the purpose of benefiting the people of Ireland—

MR. T. M. HEALY
Whose money is it?

§ MR. V. GIBBS
must appeal to the Chair. Not only were the Unionist Members subjected to the grossest ingratitude, but private Members, like an hon. Friend behind him, who had taken no part in this discussion, were subjected to personal insults. It was not a very cheering prospect for the future.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
I think the proper time to discuss the question raised, as to the effect on this money in case of the Home Rule Bill becoming law, will be when legislation is brought forward to provide the £169,000 or £170,000. I do not think this is the proper time to discuss it.

§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)
expressed the greatest dissatisfaction at the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, A 1015 Bill was at present before the House, the object of which was to alter the whole relations between England and Ireland, and yet hon. Members could not get the slightest information as to how vast monetary transactions which had taken place would be affected by the future.

§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
said, so much had been said by Irish Members as to English Members having nothing to do with this matter, that there was one branch of the subject that appeared to have been very much overlooked—namely, that they, the taxpayers, were supplying the money. The sum of £600,000 that was to be taken out of the Imperial Exchequer to construct these railways was very largely supplied by the English taxpayer. He knew the Irish Members said they paid all this taxation, and that the alliance between England and Ireland was very beneficial to this country.

MR. T. M. HEALY
You rob us of £2,000,000 a year.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, the practical point remained that they had got to vote this large sum of money. The Debate had elicited that only 15 miles of these railways had been completed, although four years had elapsed since the Light Railways Act was passed. He was the representative of a very poor district, which had subscribed its share to this large outlay, and protested against this additional Vote until at least they knew that some more material result was to be gained. They were entitled to more information before they passed the Vote.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
Considerable assistance has been lent the Committee by the expression of their views by my two right hon. Friends who have in the immediate past each occupied the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland. There is another of our brother Members in this House who, if he had been in his place, might have been in a position to render very material assistance to the Committee, and especially to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I refer to the present occupant of the post of Chief Secretary. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is within reach, but I think it would be most desirable we should have the views not only of the Financial Secretary, but of the Irish Government, because I need hardly remind 1016 the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the Chief Secretary for the time being must not allow his action to be hampered and his hand held back by even so eminent a Colleague as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. This very salutary step in the direction of the improvement of Ireland is twofold in its character. One object was, no doubt, to afford relief by way of employment to the people in a period of distress in that country. But differing in that respect from almost all relief works or quasi relief works in the past, it was proposed by these Irish light railways, at the same time as they afforded immediate relief in the direction of providing employment to the people, to confer lasting benefits by means of the permanent improvement of the means of communication in Ireland. I must enter my protest against the idea that has been put forward in several quarters that this was the only relief work which has been undertaken of a permanent as distinguished from an ephemeral character; for, although I do not intend to detain the Committee by going into the question now, I must recall attention to the fact that the measures which I was charged with proposing to Parliament and carrying into execution in 1879–80 also aimed at the permanent as well as the ephemeral benefit of the Irish people. I hope the Financial Secretary, in the unfortunate absence of the Chief Secretary, will be able to tell us what is to be the policy of the Irish Government in the immediate future with regard to these works. Do they, when the agricultural classes will be engaged in spring sowing and other field work, and later on in the collection of the harvests, intend to expend large sums of public money at a time when the people do not require employment? I do not for a moment suggest that these works should be allowed to lie fallow for the best part of the year, but I say that the twofold object of the works should be carefully borne in mind. If they are to be pushed on during the spring and summer months we shall next winter have the old story over again, and the British taxpayer will be appealed to to find money for further relief works, whereas if these railways are judiciously managed, and if the resources at the disposal of the Go- 1017 vernment in this respect are carefully husbanded, it may be practicable, while not allowing the works to fall into disrepair in any way, to increase the amount of employment at a time of the year when employment is really needed in the interests of the inhabitants of Ireland, rather than to obtain supposed financial results by the hurried execution of this railway movement. For my own part, I never was a great believer in these light railways as such, though I believe they have been productive of good results indirectly, that is to say, by affording employment to the people, but if the element of affording employment to the people is to be left out of consideration altogether, these works will only be a meagre benefit to the country at all. I hope we shall have some definite statement as to what is to be the policy of the Irish Government in the immediate future. I do not know whether the discussion will continue to such time as will enable the Chief Secretary to be in his place, and I hesitate to take the step of facilitating his presence by suggesting that some other Vote should be discussed till we have the advantage of the presence of the Chief Secretary. I hope we shall be afforded some indication of the line of policy the Government intend to take.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman through all his remarks. I do not think it at all necessary that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland should be present to speak upon the policy in respect to this Vote. What we are doing in respect to these light railways is loyally to carry out the policy of the late Government, and that will continue to be our policy. My opinion as to the object of these light railways is that it was partly to give employment to the people but also to confer a permanent advantage on the country by improving the means of communication. I think it best for Ireland that the railways should be pushed on as quickly as possible, and so far as I am concerned I shall use every effort to bring pressure to bear not only upon the Irish Board of Works but upon the Railway Companies for carrying out as quickly as possible the object we have in view. I would like to point out that we are not seeking to impose new taxation on the people of this country. Parliament has passed an Act providing 1018 £600,000 for the purposes of these light railways, and we are now voting a sum to complete that £600,000, so that we are merely asking for a Vote to carry out the pledge given by Parliament on the subject. The right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Collings) has asked me to use my influence as to the conduct of hon. Members. I can only answer for my own conduct, and as for myself I hope to treat not only this but every other question with consideration for every Member of this House, and in considering questions like this I deprecate either heat or the introduction of strong language.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)
I think the Committee will recognise the absolute courtesy with which the right hon. Gentleman treats all who are concerned in this discussion, and on all other matters on which he addresses the House. I think also that the Committee will have heard with satisfaction the declaration of my right hon. Friend, that on this point the Government are following loyally the policy of the late Government. Some of us regret they do not carry that loyal sequence a little further. But I must point out to my right hon. Friend that circumstances have greatly changed the whole question of policy. I myself, I think, have been as active and prominent a supporter of the prosecution of these public works in Ireland as any Member of the House. I have believed it was a claim which Ireland had upon the Imperial Exchequer, and I believed, not only in regard to the employment which they would give in times of distress, but also as a permanent benefit to Ireland, these railways deserved our heartiest support. And, Sir, therefore most willingly I, for one, voted the contribution of £600,000 from the Imperial Exchequer to be wholly expended in Ireland. But that was when I was under the belief that Ireland not only was, but was going to be an integral portion of the United Kingdom. The policy of the late Government was to keep it so, and now that the present Government have adopted a totally different attitude, I certainly think it is time for this Committee to re-consider the whole question. I, for one, am not prepared to vote one single penny for these railways, or for any other act of 1019 consideration of the kind, if Ireland is hereafter to be financially independent of assistance from this country. I certainly think the Committee would be quite wise in postponing the consideration of this Vote—if it does not actually reject it, until we know what the views of the House as a whole are on the Home Rule Bill. If this House is going to give to Ireland the power of taxation and the independent power of dealing with its own financial affairs, then I think the whole question of the provision of light railways should be handed over to Irish opinion. We have some reason to believe, from the debates that took place in the last Parliament, that Irish Members are opposed to this policy, and that if they were dealing with their own money, they would not subscribe a penny to these light railways. That is a point which I should be glad to relegate as a matter for their consideration.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I think it would hardly be a convenient method, especially having regard to the principles laid down by the Speaker this afternoon, if we were to graft a Home Rule debate on a Supplementary Estimate. There is a much simpler and more direct course for my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham to take, and that is to negative this Vote, and take the opinion of the House upon it. We certainly cannot postpone the Vote. We think it our duty to press on the Vote, and if my right hon. Friend has made up his mind in that contingency, which he obviously contemplates as a certainty on this Vote, let us take a decision on the Vote at once. That will save the time of the Committee, and if my right hon. Friend is successful he will save the Exchequer £34,000, and we shall have come to a satisfactory conclusion on this Vote. At all events, do not let us waste our time by an interlocutory discussion of Home Rule on a Supplementary Vote for Irish Railways.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
ventured to submit that the discussion in the phases it had now assumed came exactly within the ruling of the Speaker. There was a debate concerning the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and did ever any discussion of the kind go forward in the House of Commons before without the presence of the Chief Secretary? He desired to know where the Chief Secretary was, and in 1020 order to find it out he begged to move to report Progress.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
As the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is now in his place—

§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,) Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Perhaps, Sir, it will save the right hon. Gentleman's remarks if I intervene. I regret very much that I seemed to be wanting in courtesy to the Committee or in attention to the duties of my Department in not being present during the discussion of this Vote. The truth is I was very busily engaged, and I thought that there would be no doubt as to this money being voted. We are simply carrying out the policy initiated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and more than that, as I uuderstand and as I maintain, a policy to which this House and Parliament is pledged. What we ask for is simply the vote of the money wanted in order to carry through a further stage the scheme introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, a scheme which was approved by the House of Commons and Parliament of that day, and to give up which now would be to stultify the action of the late Government and the approval given to it by the late Parliament. Therefore it did not enter into my mind at all that there would have been the slightest doubt about the passing of this Vote. I regret that my absence should have been the cause, if it were the real cause, of delaying a Vote in no sense a Party Vote, and which in no sense can be made a Party Vote; and I do now respectfully hope that my absence may be considered to have been condoned, and that the Vote may be allowed to pass.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
I have no desire to find fault with the right hon. Gentleman, who, I feel sure, was urgently occupied, and I have no doubt he came as soon as he could, but the presence of a representative of the Irish Government in the Committee was desired, not 1021 to give any explanation as to the action of the late Government, but as to the future policy of the Irish Government with respect to the administration and expenditure of the money which the Committee was asked for. The question I wish to ask is this: Having regard to the fact that this light railway scheme was provided and sanctioned by Parliament for a twofold object—for providing employment in times of distress, and also for developing the local industries of the country—I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman [Cries of"Divide, divide!"]—if his very disorderly friends will allow me to do so—whether he intends to push the works forward with all available speed during seed time, when it will be necessary to import labour to carry on the works, or whether he intends to bear in mind the fact that Parliament entered upon this work to a large extent with a view of affording employment in times of distress?

§ MR. J. MORLEY
I am not sure, Sir, that my friends are the most disorderly; but, as I understand that the question which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me has been already answered in substance by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, who speaks with quite as much authority as I should, I must very respectfully decline to answer it again.

Mr. J. A. PEASE
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
I certainly think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will not promote the object he has in view of pushing forward the progress of business in this House if, when he rises in order to make an explanation and an apology, he accompanies that apology with an insinuation against his political opponents. Now, I beg to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Motion which so tardily succeeded in gaining his presence was a perfectly bonâ fide Motion. It has already been held by the Speaker that to impute obstruction to any hon. Member of the House is disorderly and a breach of Privilege, but probably the new Members of the House 1022 are not aware of that. The matter arose on the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman, failing to obtain any satisfactory reply from the Secretary to the Treasury, asked for the presence of the Chief Secretary, who alone has authority in this House to speak as to what is the intention of the Government of Ireland with regard to this matter. The question the right hon. Gentleman put is a pertinent question which deserves a civil answer; and if the Chief Secretary refuses to give a civil answer, then I think the Committee will be perfectly justified in refusing to proceed with the Vote. The question was in what way the money was to be spent, and it was pointed out that if these works were to be proceeded with in the time of seed sowing or harvest they would enter into competition with labour devoted to other purposes. The simple question asked was whether these works were to proceed now, or whether in spreading them out the Chief Secretary would have some regard to the interests of the localities for whose benefit they were intended.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W.HARCOURT,) Derby
I should really like to do something, if I can, to soften the demonstrations that have been made. I am very anxious to bring this scene—I do not use the word in an objectionable sense—my right hon. Friend knows what I mean—to a conclusion. Now, as I understand that my right hon. Friend opposite rather complained of my not being in the House, I have been in the House a great many times this afternoon, and on every occasion I came into the House I found my right hon. Friend on his legs. I admire his oratory, but I felt after four or five times that I knew his case by heart. All I can say is that, in my opinion, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has given a very civil answer. ["No."] Well, I think he has. There are some people who are determined to take no answer. I will give the answer over again, which has been given a dozen times this evening. It is that these works on the Light Irish Railways are going on in the regular course, in order to carry out the plan agreed to by the last Parliament on the proposal of the late Government. You may go on all this evening; you may go on all next week repeating these ques- 1023 tions, and you can and will receive no other answer than that. It is an explicit and clear answer, and I do hope that under these circumstances the Committee will now consent to go to a Division.