CLASS I. (Hansard, 5 September 1893)

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,) Oldham
, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that the services referred to would remain under Imperial control. He hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with having made his protest, and he was obliged to him for not having occupied much time.

§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)
urged that it was the custom of every Government to ask for more money for England than was expended there. In the last Appropriation Account, £16,000 was saved in respect of this Vote, and £8,000 was expended.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the whole Vote could not now be discussed.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
said, that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment had had strong support in his arguments from the Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), who had urged that certain things in which the Irish Members were interested ought to be left for the consideration of the Home Rule Parliament. That was not his own position. He would like to know why it was necessary to provide new Constabulary barracks at Rathfarnham, County Dublin, in respect of which he saw an item of £250, as the present one was a very substantial building?

§ MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)
said, he must protest against the statement of the hon. and gallant Member as to the practice of the British Government in regard to Irish Estimates. The hon. Member's statements were not borne out by the figures which the Government had laid on the Table. While he admitted that the expenditure on Irish objects must now be more carefully watched than hitherto in view of the contingency of the success of the Government in their Home Rule policy, he would be most unwilling to see Ireland treated in the meantime in any churlish spirit and without due consideration being given to her just claims. He would, therefore, advise his hon. Friend to be content with the protest he had made, and not to take a Division upon his Amendment.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
, in reply to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, said that the ground was not required for a new Constabulary barracks, but merely to make the present one more secure and complete. As to the Estimates for Ireland for this year, he had kept them down as much as possible, so as not to have any surplus in respect of particular items of expenditure; but so much depended upon the state of the labour market and other circumstances that it was impossible to make an estimate of the exact sum required.

§ MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)
said, with regard to the item for £700 for a site for the Inland Revenue, he presumed it was for the purchase of some existing premises, and that some of the money would be spent upon alterations?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, that was so, and that there would be a considerable saving when the alterations were made.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer could not act in an impartial spirit between the English and the Irish taxpayer. He naturally worked for his own side. The Irish people considered that both Parties, Conservative and Liberal, tried to rob them in different ways.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not now discussing the item before the Committee.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
remarked that, after having severed as far as it could by the Home Rule Bill its connection with Ireland, the House was asked to go on pouring capital into Ireland. It was proposed to spend money in acquiring Inland Revenue premises at Rathmines. In six years, if the Home Rule Bill passed, the House would have nothing to do with Inland Revenue in Ireland, and it was perfectly ridiculous to ask the House to make capital expenditure on the purchase of premises for which, after a few years, it would have no use whatever. If the House was to give up certain duties in Ireland it ought not to be called upon to pay anything in the form of capital expenditure for the establishments required to levy the duties. If the Government needed fresh premises they could hire a house.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)
I entirely agree with the doctrine laid down by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), that it becomes our duty as British Representatives to look with the greatest possible care at all new expenditure in Ireland, and all the more because we now have it on the authority of the Government that the principle on which repartition of expenditure between Ireland and Great Britain is to be carried out is that Ireland should pay what it pays now. On that basis everything we spend in Ireland is capitalised for the benefit of Ireland and credited to Ireland. If we are now the gainers we shall not only now have to pay for our present generosity, 119 but shall have to pay permanently. We have, therefore, a double interest in seeing that economy is enforced in regard to new expenditure. I agree with those who have spoken that we need not take account of such expenditure as the increase for the Coastguard, but, as regards the other expenditure, Members opposite who have called attention to it have been perfectly within their rights. I meant to ask my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary what will become of these valuable buildings which are being kept up at our expense in Ireland after we have done with them? I really was never able, after the most careful study of the Home Rule Bill, to find out what was the intention in regard to this matter. Take the Vote with which we are dealing. Who will get the £950 after the Inland Revenue has been placed in the hands of the Irish people? I really think that is a question which has a very important bearing on this Vote. Of course, if the Chief Secretary can assure us that our property in all these buildings will remain intact after the Bill has passed, and that we shall be able to make the best bargain we can with the Irish Government, or to sell in the open market, there will be some reason why we should pass over the present demand. I should like to know, however, what will be the position of these buildings after we have | paid for them if the Home Rule Bill becomes law?

MR. J. MORLEY
As to the principle which my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down—namely, that the Committee ought to scrutinize Irish Votes with extra care in view of the possible changes in Ireland, I do not complain of that principle. But, of course, my right hon. Friends will concede that Ireland must be kept going, and these three items are thought to be desirable in the interests of Ireland as the Administration now subsists. In answer to my right hon. Friend's question, I would remind him at the end of six years, and not till then, there is to be a complete review of the financial arrangements and relations between Great Britain and Ireland, and that will be the time at which the value of these buildings will have to be considered. The precise terms on which they will be handed over to the Irish Government 120 will be a most important matter for consideration.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
Will that apply to Post Office buildings?

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
I must point out that we have now reached a very serious question, because it is evident that there has been a very important causus omissus in the Home Rule Bill. The Post Office expenditure, I suppose, is to be reviewed at the end of six years as well as all the others, but I would take the case of the barracks. That, at all events, is a very clear case. At the end of six years the intention of the Government is that we should no longer have any interest in the Constabulary, which would, as soon as possible, be disestablished. What, then, is to become of these enormous barracks and buildings which have been erected at the expense of the United Kingdom? Are they to go to the Irish Government without any return to us? My right hon. Friend says that the matter ought to be considered and settled at the end of six years; but have not the Government made up their minds on the point already? This is another provisional point in the Bill. I very much regret that we had not an opportunity of discussing it when we had the Bill before us; but that is not owing to any fault of ours. I think, under the circumstances, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will reconsider the ad-vice he gave to the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley). I think we ought to vote against every item of expenditure proposed by the Government on buildings in Ireland, inasmuch as the Government have not the least idea what is to become of these buildings.

MR. J. MORLEY
I do not know whether it is in Order, Mr. Mellor, for Gentlemen to rediscuss the Home Rule Bill. [Opposition cries of "No!"] If so, I conceive that the whole financial arrangement will be open to rediscussion. I have no objection whatever; and if the 82 days already devoted to the Bill swell out to 100 or 150 days I cannot help it. Only I should like to understand, Sir, whether it is in Order, because, if so, we must provide ourselves with the requisite Papers and materials.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
On the point of Order, I submit that we 121 are not trying to discuss the financial relations.

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! It is perfectly plain that it is not in Order to discuss the Financial Clauses of the Home Rule Bill in this Committee. Of course, the question may be raised whether this is a permanent or a temporary improvement, but it would be out of Order to go into the Home Rule Bill.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
On the point of Order, Mr. Mellor, should we be entitled to argue that certain expenditure would be desirable if it were in the nature of capital expenditure, and that such expenditure would be unfair to this country? We are now on Estimates involving, to a certain extent, capital expenditure in Ireland. We hope we may be allowed to discuss that from the new point of view, as it is possible that capital expenditure will now have to be treated in a totally different manner from the capital expenditure hitherto incurred. I quite agree that we cannot discuss the financial relations between the two countries—that, is to say, as to whether Ireland or England pays too much; but I trust that we may be allowed to take into consideration the different state of things that may arise under the Home Rule Bill.

MR. J. MORLEY
On the principle laid down by my right hon. Friend opposite, there is no reason why we should not on all Votes discuss all imaginary or possible contingencies. I must remind my right hon. Friend that the Bill has not yet passed into law. If the Home Rule Bill had become the Home Rule Act, I could understand the position; but I do not think that on a merely hypothetical contingency it is possible to bring up every item of expenditure. I cannot see how you are going to draw a distinction between capital expenditure and other expenditure, and I am bound to say I must protest against the course that is being followed.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)
I do not quite understand the line taken up by the Chief Secretary. He admits, of course, that there is a contingency which it is justifiable to contemplate when discussing the Estimates, and that there are other contingencies so absolutely remote, so shadowy, so outside the purview of any practical statesman, that it would be a mere waste of time 122 for us to take them into account when we are dealing with the Estimates. The point we have to determine now is one which will be closely affected by the financial arrangement to be established by the Home Rule Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not show his usual apprehension when he said he could draw no distinction between capital and ordinary expenditure. It is evident that such a distinction is absolutely vital. The question of the amount we are to give to Ireland for purposes of the expenditure within the year is naturally outside any Home Rule proposal, and the discussion would be irrelevant if annual items only were involved. But when we come to capital expenditure of large amount, when we are taking out of the Imperial Treasury relatively large sums, and spending them in Ireland, it becomes important to know whether, if Home Rule passes, these sums are to be handed over to the new Irish Government, and also whether there is any probability of the Home Rule Bill passing? Are the Government going to take up the position that, in spite of the vote of last Friday night, the chances of Home Rule are so remote that no sane politician would take them into account? If they declare that this is their view, I should be inclined to agree with them, and I should vote with them in the coming Division. If, however, on the other hand, they take the view that Home Rule is a matter which cannot be long deferred, I say it is absolutely incumbent on us to see that we do not, by rashly voting money now, hand over large capital sums, which will ultimately have to be dealt with, not by the Imperial Parliament, but by the Home Rule Parliament.

MR. J. MORLEY
I may inform the right hon. Gentleman that whilst he was absent his right hon. Colleague advised the Mover of the Amendment to be content with making a protest, and not to take a Division.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, that since that advice was given the circumstances had changed by the information which had been given to the Committee, and he must reserve to himself the right to divide if he thought proper to do so.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, a very simple question had been put, and the whole Treasury Bench had been puzzled 123 by it; and because they could not answer it on the spot they desired to raise a point of Order. The Committee was asked to vote £950 for capital expenditure on the Revenue Office at Kilkenny. In the event of the Home Rule Bill coming into operation, he wished to know whose property the freehold would be when the arrangement was made?

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member cannot go into the Home Rule Bill on these items. Of course, I cannot say that it is out of Order for an hon. Member to say—"I do not vote for this, because many years hence, or a few years hence, the building may cease to be the property of the country," but that is not the question we are now on. I wish to point out to the Committee that it is absolutely necessary to keep to the proper context of these items.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
On the point of Order, Sir, I would remind you of a case which arose last year, or the year before. A very vigorous attack was made by the then Opposition on certain proposed capital expenditure upon buildings required for the British Resident at Cairo, the whole basis of the attack being that the British occupation in Cairo was to be of a temporary character, and that, therefore, capital expenditure should not be indulged in.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,) Wolverhampton, E.
I must suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his memory is not quite accurate. I took part in the Debate to which he refers, and the question was not respecting the temporary occupation of Egypt, but with regard to the erection of a permanent Embassy at Berlin. It was pointed out that we should be put to enormous cost if we erected a permanent building at Berlin, and that it would be cheaper to hire houses for Ambassadors than to erect them. The discussion had nothing to do with the temporary occupation of Egypt.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
Frequently, and not on one occasion only, the expenditure in Egypt has been discussed from a hypothetical point of view. The Estimates have constantly been argued with reference to the future policy of the Government.

THE CHAIRMAN
I was not present during the discussion which has been 124 referred to between that case and the present. In the present case, we must regard Ireland as it is. It is impossible to go into the question of the possible passage of a Bill which may never pass the House of Lords. That would be introducing into this discussion an element which would raise an enormous question, and one of extreme difficulty, and altogether foreign to the nature of our proceedings.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, the Committee had no right to vote this £950 unless Members knew what was to become of it. They had no right to sit round the House, like Mr. Jabez Balfour's Directors, and take for granted everything that was said. He asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland to whom the buildings would belong if the money was voted?

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, he thought the Act furnished a reply to the hon. Member's question. By Section 35—

THE CHAIRMAN
What Act?

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
I mean the Home Rule Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN
That is clearly out of Order.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
contended that Members were strictly within their right in discussing the fate of that portion of the Vote which related to future years—namely, the capital portion. Members were naturally anxious to know what was to become of the freehold premises after the Home Rule Bill had passed. The Government asked them to hand over an enormous sum as a bribe to gentlemen below the Gangway (the Irish Members).

THE CHAIRMAN
I have already ruled that this is out of Order.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
asked whether he was not in Order in giving his reasons for his objections?

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is entitled to give his reasons; but I have already ruled that he cannot go into the details of the Home Rule Bill.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, his reasons were plain. There was part of this Vote which they never enjoyed the benefit of, and they had a right to oppose it. The Government had taken power to hand over these buildings to others, and he said they on that side were not willing that their capital should be 125 invested for the purpose of having the buildings handed over afterwards to gentlemen below the Gangway. [Cries of "Order!"] He did not for a moment suppose that these hon. Gentlemen would put public money into their private pockets; they all knew that they were always ready to do their duty—they were ready to get as much money as possible; but they on their side had a duty to perform, to their constituents, and if they passed this Vote without a Division it would form a precedent that they were willing, notwithstanding altered circumstances, to provide for the needs of Ireland for all time.

§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)
said, they (the Irish Members) had voted for British expenditure which was necessary, and they were ready to vote against an expenditure that might be considered unreasonable. In this case the sum was small; the need was, he understood, somewhat urgent, and he thought lion. Members might allow the Vote to pass.

§ MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)
said, they were asked by this Vote to lay down a precedent. They had to remember that they were not to deal with Ireland as in the past. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) laid down a good rule with regard to voting money for current expenditure; but when they came to vote it as capita], they should look upon it in a different light. The Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley) said he could not see the difference between money for current expenditure and capital expenditure. Surely that was the case of the bankrupt—the man who could not make out the difference between what was current expenditure and what was capital, and who, consequently, went to the wall. That should be considered here, and he would like to know from the Chief Secretary whether this rule was to apply to other cases as well as that which was before them? He did not want to discuss the matter as if they were discussing the Home Rule Bill; but he hoped this was not to be regarded as a precedent.

§ MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)
said, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would get them out of the difficulty, because the case before the Committee was one which, it seemed to him, emphasised the principle of the discussion that had taken place. He understood the 126 Secretary to the Treasury to say that the Vote was for the alteration of premises occupied by the Inland Revenue officials at Kilkenny, and rented by them. Why should they not strike out the £500 which, as he understood, was not necessary for keeping the concern going? In view of possible contingencies, this appeared to him to be unnecessary capital expenditure, and such expenditure should be avoided as far as possible. No one would fail in agreeing with him that as the amount of expenditure increased the balance left was so much less. He had no desire to add to the difficulty of the position in these particular matters, but he was bound to say this was a matter of very great importance, and he did feel that this was hardly a time at which to enter upon the purchase of premises for the purposes of the Government. That was the question raised in this case.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, the question was one of providing proper premises for the officers of Inland Revenue at this place. The present premises were in an insanitary condition, and must be given up, and other premises taken. They were getting these premises at a ground rent of £28 on condition that £700 should be spent in alterations.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
Is that purchase money?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
was understood to say that was included. The buildings would require alterations to meet the necessities of the men. But so far as concerned the premises in which the men worked, it was quite impossible they could remain there; the men must leave. The Committee would see, therefore, that there were special circumstances in this case, and he did not think it was a time at which they were entitled to enter into the general question raised by the Home Rule Bill.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, he would like to ask if they were going to spend this money, or a large portion of it, on a rented house?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, the house was subject to a ground rent of £28.

§ SIR T. LEA
said, he was not quite sure that he and his friends could take the same view as Members opposite on this matter. They were going to give Home Rule to Ireland. [Cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! I have already stated that hon. Members cannot go into the Home Rule Question.

§ SIR T. LEA
said, he bowed to the ruling of the Chair. He merely wished to say that his constituents were anxious to get any advantage they could from this House. They were not anxious to be deprived of its protection, and it was his duty to object to any step that tended to an alteration in the present system of control in these matters.

§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)
said, what the hon. Baronet had just said might be good enough from the point of view of Irish Members. But the question the Government had been asked was a very simple one, and they ought not to remain in doubt upon it. It was a question involving only a comparatively small sum; but supposing they should have a question involving £2,000,000? It seemed to him that the precedent was a serious matter, and he was inclined to think that, as the Secretary to the Treasury had said as much as he could about the matter, the Chief Secretary should now give them a reply which, he hoped, would be more satisfactory.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
said, he wanted to ask a question with regard to the Royal Hibernian Military School, There had been an outbreak of fever at that institution and a Committee was appointed. He would like to know whether the Committee had reported; and, if so, whether any proposals made in regard to the sanitary arrangements of the school were being carried out? It did not appear to him that any money was being taken for the purpose.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, the Committee had reported, the water supply of the school being said to be very defective. He could assure the hon. Member that the matter was having attention.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, he would like to ask whether any decision had been come to with regard to the proposal to erect new barracks in the Phoenix Park, Dublin? A considerable sum had been voted, but there had been no expenditure 128 during the two years that had elapsed. If there had been any change of policy, and it had been decided not to build the barracks, the item put down in the Estimates for it should be omitted.

§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,) Newcastle-upon-Tyne
said, this was a matter to which he had paid attention. As the right hon. Gentleman knew, a site had been fixed upon in a corner of the Park for the erection of the barracks. From information he had received, however, he had come to the conclusion that a building on the spot indicated would be very unsightly, and that it would arouse feelings of strong dissatisfaction among the people of Dublin. He had, therefore, thought it would be well to look about for some other site for the purpose—a site which would be equally convenient, and which would not be open to the objection that would be taken in this case. They had found great difficulty in discovering within the Park itself any piece of ground suitable, and his own view was that it would be better to acquire land outside the Park near Chapelizod rather than interfere with the beauty of the Park. At the same time, he quite agreed that this barrack was needed for the Constabulary, and it was especially desirable it should be near the Park. If they could not find a site on the Chapelizod Road they might have to fall back upon some other place in the Park, and possibly the old site. He hoped the hon. Member would not think there was anything wrong in keeping the question open for another year. He did not say it would be kept open for another year, because he believed a decision would be arrived at in a few weeks.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, the right hon. Gentleman had used the word "Constabulary." Did he mean the Metropolitan Police?

§ MR. J. MORLEY
Yes, the Metropolitan Police.

§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)
complained that the money voted for specific purposes was not spent on these purposes. This had been the practice for years, and he thought it was a wrong state of affairs to make such a system habitual. It was giving an enormous temptation to Irish officials to spend this money on whatever they liked. The money was transferred from one object to another in a 129 perfectly reckless manner, and so long as this was the case the money would be spent irregularly.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
desired to raise a question of some importance to the citizens of Dublin—namely, the condition of the Green Street Court House, and the proposal the Government made in regard to it. There was a sum of £1,000 in this Vote as a grant in aid for the improvement of the Green Street Court House. During the last Session this question was before the House, and it was proved in the Debates upon it that it was a building that could not be improved. The highest sanitary engineers in the City of Dublin declared it to be unfit for human occupation, and yet the Government—or rather because the previous Government failed to bring about a settlement with the Corporation and the County Jury—were now going to throw good money into what was just a pit. It would do no good, the money would be absolutely wasted, and on that ground he proposed to move to disallow this Vote altogether. Green Street Court House was a Crown Court House, and it was also a City Court House. That was to say Crown cases were tried there by the Judges of Assize, and the Recorder of Dublin sat there almost permanently trying civil bills and criminal cases from the city. Many years ago a proposal was made to build a new Court House for Dublin. The estimate, in the first place, was £39,000, and the Government proposed to pay one-third, namely £13,000, as their contribution to the cost. The arrangement was that the County of Dublin Grand Jury, in view of the fact that they were interested in the Court House, should pay a second third, and the City, which by the way used the Court House more than either the Crown or the County of Dublin, should pay the remainder. That was an absolutely fair arrangement, and if the Corporation had not allowed political motives to dominate public considerations that new Court House would have been built, and there would have been an enormous expenditure for the benefit of the artizans of Dublin; these cases would not have to be tried in an insanitary building, and a legitimate and fair settlement might have been arrived at. It so happened at the time, however, that there was political trouble 130 in the county, and the Lord Mayor of Dublin was struck out of the Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of the day. This was ancient history, but it lay at the bottom of the whole case. He did not argue whether it was right or wrong, but because the Government took that step the Corporation withdrew from their part of the bargain and refused to contribute the £13,000 it was proposed they should contribute towards building the new Court House. There was nothing like the Green Street Court House in the Kingdom. He saw an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bodkin), who he was sure would agree with the whole of his professional brethren and the sanitary engineers of the City of Dublin that it was not a pleasant place to spend a day in. He (Mr. Russell) had had personal experience of that Court House. It was his fortune to spend nine consecutive days in it as a special juror; he had sat in the Court House on Licensing Sessions, and he could say he had never sat five hours in the place without feeling the worse for it, whilst lawyers had had serious illnesses which their physicians directly traced to the insanitary condition of the building. What was proposed to be done? Because the Government could not arrange with the Corporation and the Corporation chose to play this dog-in-the-manger policy it was proposed to patch up this old building. Lord Chief Justice O'Brien last year used these words, which he quoted from Hansard, containing the Report of the previous references to this matter— If the responsibility for the Court House was conjoint the disgrace equally belonged to the Corporation and the Government. To-day it was impossible to move or breathe in the Court. The place was pervaded by a mephitic atmosphere. If he did not find before the next Commission that some practical move was taken to remedy the state of things, he would summon a meeting of the Common Law Judges and take counsel with his brethren as to whether they could not go elsewhere. This matter was raised by him (Mr. Russell) in a question to the Chief Secretary (and which contained the above quotation) on the 15th February, 1892. A little later on the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) asked the then Chief Secretary the right hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson) a question on the subject, and he gave the following extract in his question:— 131 When the jury was 9worn one of the jurors complained of a great draught in the jury box. The Lord Chief Justice said the special jurors of Dublin should not be allowed to get the influenza, and ordered that the windows should be closed. To order the window to be closed was one thing, getting it closed was another. One of the jurors tried to close the window near the jury box, but was unable to do so. The Lord Chief Justice: This is scandalous. This state of things is an outrage upon civilisation. On the 1st March, 1892, one of the Members for Kerry (Mr. Kilbride), on behalf of the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny), asked the Chief Secretary the following question:— If it has been arranged that the Commission of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery hitherto held in the Green Street Court House, Dublin, will in future be held in the Four Courts, if the criminal and civil business of the Recorder of the City of Dublin is to be discharged as heretofore at Green Street; whether Mr. W. Kaye Perry, C.E., has reported to the Lord Chief Justice that Green Street Court House is unfit for human occupation; and whether the Irish Government refused to do anything to replace the present Court-house unless there is a local contribution of two-thirds of the total amount of the estimated cost? The Chief Secretary (Mr. Jackson) replied— No general arrangement of the nature indicated in the first paragraph has been come to; but it has been decided to hold the next Commission sitting at the Four Courts. This decision does not include the business of the Recorder. Mr. Kaye Perry has, I understand, reported to the effect indicated. It is not the fact that the Irish Government refused to do anything to replace the present Court House. As I have already stated, they are willing to ask the Treasury to revive the charge sanctioned in 1883, which was accepted at that time as satisfactory by all parties concerned, but from which the Corporation of Dublin subsequently withdrew. He thought that that was sufficient proof, at all events, of the insanitary state of this Court House, and yet in face of all these facts the Government proposed to give £1,000 to patch up this wretched building. It was simply throwing away the money. It was perfectly impossible to patch up the Court House. It was situate in the worst part of the City; it was inconvenient, so far as the locality was concerned, to the lawyers; it was inconvenient to the general public, and it was not safe for the public. The building ought to be demolished and a new Court House erected, but the Government 132 were proposing to simply cover this wretched wound. They would not make the place sanitary by the expenditure of this £1,000, and he did not know how much the Corporation were proposing to spend upon it.

§ MR. J. MORLEY
£2,000 in addition to this £1,000.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
did not care how much or how little was spent upon it; it would be impossible to make it a decent place for people who had to spend their time in it. This quarrel to which he had referred took place in 1883—in the pre-union of hearts days; and would it not be worth while for the Chief Secretary to see whether it was not possible to renew the old arrangement, or to make some new arrangement upon this question? Considering the use which the Government made of the Court House he regarded the proposal made by the Government in 1883 as a perfectly reasonable one. The Recorder sat in Green Street for eight months out of the 12, disposing of City cases; and the City of Dublin ought to pay a larger contribution than the Government, which simply used the Court House now and then; and if the County of Dublin had responsibilities in connection with the matter they ought to be compelled to meet them. The County did not stand in the way of carrying out the proposal of 1883, and he did not think any difficulty would arise in connection with the County of Dublin Grand Jury. The Committee ought not to sanction the spending of this £1,000 on an object which could never be achieved. The Government were now on the best terms with the Corporation of Dublin, and they ought to endeavour to come to some arrangement with them. For his part he thought the present Corporation was much more efficient than that of 1883, and as the original cause of the quarrel had been removed and the name of the Lord Mayor restored to the Commission, he did not see any difficulty in arriving at a settlement of the question. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £1,000 in respect of the Green Street Court House.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, they had to look upon all sides of this question. It was not a matter altogether for the Government; in fact, it was a matter in which the Government had very little control. This matter rested more or less with the Corporation, in whose hands was the choice of a site. The Corporation after, he supposed, due consideration, had decided upon the Green Street site, and they had plans prepared which, after considerable discussion and consideration of the two sites, the Board of Works, as representing the Government, had agreed to. The other site discussed—namely, the Four Courts, would have been much more convenient to the Judge and the lawyers, and perhaps to the public men; but in this matter they had considered the wishes of the Corporation. On the 28th of August last, the Lord Chief Justice and several other representative men went through the plans and assented to the proposal, which, as he had said, were agreed to by the Board of Works, and by the Grand Jury also, so that it would be very difficult for the Government to act like a dog-in-the-manger, and say they would have nothing to do with this proposal. He supposed the Lord Chief Justice, and other gentlemen who visited the place and examined the plans, were satisfied that the place could be made suitable for its purpose, and he trusted, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his objection to the Vote.

§ MR. BODKIN (Roscommon, N.)
said, he considered that the Green Street Court House was very bad, but at the same time he was strongly of opinion that a great deal could be done with £3,000. It would, at all events, suffice to replace the window fastening, which the Lord Chief Justice, with that moderation of language which characterised him, had described as "an outrage on civilisation." The incident would give some idea of what was meant by outrage when used by his Lordship in the future. Certainly, the argument of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Russell) was most creditable. A few moments before he argued that there should be no capital expenditure, because they were going to get Home Rule. The hon. Gentleman said there should be no capital expenditure in reference to the building of a police barrack.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, he wanted to know who would be the owner in certain eventualities?

§ MR. BODKIN
said, the hon. Gentleman objected to the former Vote, because it was capital expenditure. He took his objection to this because it was not capital expenditure. He (Mr. Bodkin) believed they would not be long without a new Court House after they got Home Rule. In the meantime something should be done for all those attending the Green Street Court House, and he believed the best thing that could be done was to carry out the proposal which had been referred to.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)
The hon. Gentleman, if he had been more continuously in the House, would not have accused my hon. Friend with being inconsistent. The fact is, my hon. Friend raised the previous point as to the capital expenditure on one ground, and he is now opposing it on another ground. His first objection to capital expenditure was that it would be thrown away, so far as the British taxpayer is concerned, because the property might pass into other hands. His objection to the present capital expenditure is, that it will be thrown away because it is entirely useless. That is not in the least inconsistent. A further argument against this particular expenditure, that it is capital expenditure which ought to be met by the Irish Government, has been supplied by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, who has stated that when the Irish Government had the power and had our money, they are going to spend a portion of it in building a new and "illigant" Court House, somewhere outside the neighbourhood of Green Street. Well, Sir, I say that under these circumstances my hon. Friends are perfectly consistent. I very much regret that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has left the House, because this is a matter on which I should have much liked to take his opinion. Some years ago, when I first entered the House, I took a great deal of interest in that portion of the Estimates which deals with the expenditure of Metropolitan Court Houses and Courts of Law. I moved a great number of Amendments to the Estimates on that subject. Cir- 135 cumstances prevented me continuing my investigations on the point, but my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board took them up, and I venture to say there has been no more eager advocate of economy of the public money with regard to this class of expenditure than he. His contention was that no money ought to be spent on these Court Houses other than by the Local Authorities. I think it a great hardship on my constituents, and on other constituencies, that while we do not get a single farthing from the Government ourselves, while we are made to pay heavier rates because Government officials are so highly paid, those officials come down and draw the rates for Government property, although at the same time we are called upon to pay for capital expenditure in London, Dublin, and other parts of the country. I admit that there has been in the past some reason for sharing the expenditure in the present case, inasmuch as the Government have shared the accommodation. The Assize Courts have been held there, and there is no doubt that is a ground for contributing to the expenditure, although I believe the contribution would be much better made if made in the form of rent for the house for the time for which the Court is used. That claim for expenditure entirely disappears, in view of the fact that has been stated by my hon. Friend behind me. The Judges of the land will not sit in this Court, and, under these circumstances, I cannot conceive why we should go on paying for buildings from which we derive no advantage. I intend to revive this question of Imperial expenditure on local Courts. The most important case is that of London, but we should not be able to deal with London if we did not deal also with Dublin.

§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)
said, he did not conceive how the Board of Works in Ireland could lend their sanction for a moment to this extraordinary proposal. He could not for a moment believe that a Board of Works official had led the Government to suppose that by an expenditure of £3,000 the Court House could be placed in a sanitary condition or in a fit state for carrying on the business that was to be conducted there in the future. He should like to know whether the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir J. T. Hibbert) was 136 prepared to give any guarantee to the House that the expenditure of this money would place the premises either in a sanitary condition or in such a condition that there would be no complaints whatever from the barristers or suitors? The Corporation of Dublin was now trying to escape from the duty which fell on most other Corporations, and nearly all Local Authorities, of providing proper places for the administration of justice.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, that if there were one body more than another that he was inclined to distrust, it was the Irish Board of Works. Ireland was bestrewn with memorials of the failures of the Board of Works. He was very glad to see that the attractions of "another place" had palled upon the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), and that, having just returned to the House, he appeared to concur with him (Mr. Russell) in this opinion. The mere fact that the Board of Works had authorised or approved of this expenditure did not influence his judgment one iota. Seeing that they approved of it, it was very likely that it was wrong expenditure, and bad. The next reason why this expenditure had been incurred by the Government was the fact that the Lord Chief Justice had been down to Green Street. The Lord Chief Justice and the Board of Works, the Grand Jury and the Corporation, all approved, and, therefore, it was determined to give the money. That was the position of the right hon. Gentleman. Well, no one had greater respect for the Lord Chief Justice than he had in a matter of law, and in some other matters he would take his Lordship's opinion very much sooner than he would take the opinion of most people in Ireland; but, most assuredly, he should not take his opinion on sanitary science. The Lord Chief Justice had to sit in that Court a few days in the year, but the public had to sit there for months. It did not follow because the Lord Chief Justice thought this expenditure better than nothing, that he would not prefer a new building. As to the Grand Jury, he supposed they merely saw the plans, and thought they would be an improvement upon the present Court House. And in regard to the Corporation it was now, no doubt, a more efficient body than it was in 1883, when this squabble took place. There was 137 one gentleman on it who had full right and title to speak on this as a sanitary engineer, he meant Mr. Maguire; but he did not think the Corporation, as a Corporation, knew anything about sanitary science, and he should not be inclined to take its opinion upon any improvement of this kind. To his mind, what should be done is this—the Judges should sit in the Four Courts, which they could legally do. The Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chief Baron had done it—they had refused to sit in the pestilential hole in Green Street, and had sat in the Four Courts, leaving the Recorder and the city business to this Court House. The Government should remove Crown business to the Four Courts and leave the Court House to the Corporation—who had refused to come to terms. The money it was proposed to spend on this Court House was pure and unadulterated waste—throwing good money after bad. Were the Board of Works going to control this expenditure?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
No.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
Then who is to control it?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
It is subject to their inspection and approval.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, he had not the slightest faith in the control of the Board of Works of Dublin. He would rather trust the Corporation engineer than the engineer of the Board of Works. If the Board of Works did not control it the Corporation must. He protested against their sanctioning this expenditure of £1,000 without proper Government control.

MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)
said, that in this case a Vote was to be taken for the spending of a considerable sum of money in order to do that which the local ratepayers in England did wholly on their own responsibility. The President of the Local Government Board had opposed this kind of Vote on a previous occasion, and if the right hon. Gentleman was sincere—as no doubt he was—he should now use his influence to prevent an injurious system being pursued by the Government. He (Mr. Williams) objected to the Vote on another ground. It was an expenditure of a considerable sum of money on a purpose which was almost certain to fail. Patching up an old and 138 unstable and insanitary building of this kind seldom or never answered. He did not say that without some reason, for as a member, for a considerable number of years, of a Local Authority, he had had great experience of the expenditure of money on purposes of this kind. In Birmingham for 40 years very large sums of money had been spent on a certain building. During the past two or three years no less than £9,000 had been spent on it to correct inherent and incurable defects entirely without success. He happened to have been in the Court under discussion once in his life in an entirely honorary capacity, and he was bound to say that he never saw a more miserable place in his life. Though he had no special skill in architecture it was plain that the only possible way to cure defects in the Court was to pull it down right to the ground and erect a new building in its place. He was satisfied that this was a waste of the taxpayers' money. No good at all was likely to result from the outlay proposed, and if the hon. Gentleman went to a Division he (Mr. Williams) should certainly support him.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, he observed in the Estimates an item of £4,650 for the building of a wall at the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum. He knew this asylum, and knew the wall, and was convinced the sum asked for was a most exorbitant one for the rebuilding. But he had risen for the purpose of moving to reduce the Vote for National Education buildings in Ireland by £100, in order to call attention to the insanitary state of the Marlborough Street Training College, which was in a most wretched condition. This College had been in existence almost since the foundation of the National system of education. It consisted, as far as the dwelling-house accommodation was concerned, of two houses, one—that for females—was in Great George Street, and the other in Talbot Street. Since the formation of this College there had been three offshoots from it on denominational lines. The House had voted large 139 sums of money to it, and large sums had been received to enable the authorities to erect splendid buildings which had been in every way adequately provided. But when they came to the Training College itself it was in a most miserable condition.

§ MR. J. MORLEY
pointed out that the grant for the Marlborough Training College was not included in the Vote under consideration.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
thought it was included in the Literary Schools Vote. The houses in Talbot Street and Marlborough Street were in an utterly unfit sanitary condition, and unsuitable for a College of the kind for which they were used. Some of the female teachers had been seriously ill as a result of the insanitary state of the Great George Street School, and the place had been visited by the Sanitary Inspector. He thought it very unfair if they were going to provide the Denominational Colleges with everything they required and leave the College of the Board itself that the Government were directly responsible for in an insanitary condition. He had the other day received a complaint from the Lady Superintendent that she had been seriously ill, and he had himself inspected the house, and found it in bad repair. Indeed, both houses were in a wretched state, and utterly unsuited for Colleges. So long, however, as they were to be retained, he thought they ought to be put into a proper sanitary condition. He begged to move the reduction standing in his name.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
The question raised by the hon. Member does not arise on this Vote. The College is provided for out of the Vote for Irish Education.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, he only wished to know where to raise it. A Training College could not be called a model school. Where could the question be raised?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
On Class IV., Vote 11.

§ MR. JACKSON
thought the question could be raised on this Vote if not on this particular sub-head.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, he would withdraw the Motion for the present, and move it again later on.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
said, he wished to call attention to the manner in which the money provided for National school 140 buildings in Ireland was expended-Last year there was a Vote of £30,000 provided, of which only £24,283 was expended, leaving something over £5,000 unused. The Commissioners of National Education stated in their Annual Report that this undesirable result was in a great measure due to the system under which grants were sanctioned. The Commissioners had no power to control the expenditure of the money. He would like to ask the Government—who he did not suppose desired to perpetuate a system which undoubtedly led to complication of the Estimates—whether they intended to take any action on the portion of the Commissioners' Report referring to this matter, in order that the evils and difficulties resulting from it might be avoided in future?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, it was quite true that a great difficulty did arise from the uncertainty of expenditure of the money voted for National school buildings in Ireland. The sum voted each year for the last three years had been £40,000, and that had been expended during the first two years, but not in the third year. It depended entirely on the managers of schools whether the money was spent or not. The Board of Works had no control over the managers in the matter of expenditure, and it would be a very good thing if some better plan could be devised for exercising control over the actual expenditure of the money provided for the erection of school buildings in Ireland.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, when he was Chief Secretary he had a good deal to do with this question. He found the Commissioners being pressed for grants which. they were precluded from making owing to the limited amount of the grants, and in consequence of that his Government increased the amount to £40,000 a year for three years. To his surprise that sum was only expended for two years, and as in the third year the full sum provided was not claimed in grants, the Vote was then reduced to £30,000. Now it appeared that even that sum was not spent, though the Board of Works stated that sanctions had been given by the National Education Commissioners for nearly £60,000. He would venture to suggest that they had arrived at a point when the sanctioning of a loan 141 should be made conditional on a guarantee being given that actual work on the school should be begun and completed within a certain specified time. There should be some such pressure put on the managers of schools, because it was inconvenient for the Treasury not to know the amount of money which would be required each year.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
There is too much pressure on the managers. They have to raise a certain portion of the required amount by public subscription in order to obtain the grant.

§ MR. JACKSON
The managers should make sure of subscription to the necessary amount before getting the sanction of the National Education Board for a loan. It would, in his opinion, be a great improvement if the Commissioners made it a condition before sanctioning a grant that the managers of the school should come under an obligation with regard to the time for the commencement and completion of the work.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, that the funds for the erection of schools in Ireland had to be raised partly by subscription, and often managers had to wait a long time for those subscriptions. If the course suggested by two previous speakers were adopted it might nearly stop school building in Ireland.

§ SIR E. HARLAND (Belfast, N.)
said he wished to draw attention to the condition of Queen's College, Belfast. The success of that College had been most marked in the highest branches of education. He was sorry the Colleges in Galway and Cork did not extend their work so far as could be desired, but that was attributable, he thought, to the terrible agricultural depression of late years. The College in Belfast, however, had made extraordinary strides, not only in the efficiency of its various classes, but in the increase in the number of students attending the classes. But although the City of Belfast had more than doubled in size since the College was founded, with the exception of a detached laboratory and anatomic room, there had been no addition made to the College until last year or the year before, after the matter was fully gone into and representations had been made to the late Government. The late Government agreed to contribute a moiety of the 142 cost of a suitable laboratory, but the necessary additions had only been partially completed, and he regretted to find this year that there was no sum adequate for the purpose. The late Government thought they went as far as they could in granting £4,300, but the amount really required was £9,000, and this he thought the Government might well supply for the completion and proper equipment of the new building, seeing that the inhabitants of Belfast had from time to time contributed in the shape of exhibitions and prizes no less than £26,000, and that they were now erecting outside students' rooms at a cost of some £5,000. Altogether £31,000 had been found by the outside public—although the public ought not to be called upon, having regard to the fact that the College had been established by Act of Parliament. The success of the College educationally bad been most marked. This was recognised every year by public examiners in England who had to examine the students who had matriculated there. Scarcely a year passed without special reference being made to the great ability and talent turned out by this University, and a large proportion of Civil Service appointments was carried off by Belfast Queen's College men. He, therefore, felt that this College deserved the greatest consideration at the hands of the Government, whichever side might be in office. The Vote under consideration amounted to £212,000, and Belfast was now asking for only some £5,000. This was a small sum to ask for when they remembered that Ireland's contribution to the Imperial Revenue was £8,306,576, of which Belfast contributed £3,205,167, or 38 per cent. If Belfast got its fair proportion back again it would receive £76,000. He might say that this classroom question was thrust on them through the Sanitary Inspector condemning the old quarters where the students worked. The students, therefore, were between two stools. They were put out of one set of rooms and yet were not furnished with another. When they had regard to the immense increase of students in the University and the small demand made on successive Governments for the extension of the College, he hoped that the Treasury would see that the necessary 143 funds were provided next year, so that the Principal and the Professors might look forward to having the necessary accommodation for pursuing their tuition with success. When he told the Committee that in the scientific class-rooms the old fashioned methods of demonstration were continued, that in connection with natural philosophy and applied mechanics there was not even a dynamo or gas engine in use, instruction being given orally in the way of descriptions rather than ocularly with the necessary scientific appliances, it would be seen how necessary it was to improve the equipment of the College.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, he was ready to admit that the hon. Baronet had placed the ease very fairly before the Committee, and no doubt from his own point of view he had made out a strong case. Looking at the matter from a Treasury point of view, however, he did not think the authorities of Belfast College had raised sufficient money from voluntary sources as compared with other disticts. The students had raised £4,000 for rooms used for entertainments, though he did not complain of it. The hon. Baronet had stated that the people of Belfast had raised something like £30,000 for the College. That was a very large sum, of course, but in Manchester, in the case of the Victoria University, a far larger sum had been raised by public subscriptions, and the same could also be said of Cork in the case of the Queen's College. He therefore thought the Treasury had some right to ask the people of Belfast to assist themselves, and if that were done he had no doubt that the Treasury would be willing to do something further for the College. A claim for the expenditure of a large sum of money on the College had been laid before the Treasury under the late Government, and it was cut down by them to £4,000, or something like half. That sum had been spent on the College, and a further sum of £1,875 towards fittings and heating apparatus for the laboratories. Therefore the interests of Belfast had been well attended to by the Treasury, and under the circumstances he hoped the Committee would be satisfied with the discussion, and allow the Vote to pass.

§ SIR E. HARLAND
said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when he 144 asked the people of Belfast to subscribe towards the College, had overlooked the fact that they had already spent over £30,000 on the College, and he thought that compared very favourably even with Manchester when the magnitude of the two cities was considered. The original Act, by which the Queen's College of Belfast had been founded, provided for the repairing, enlarging, and improvement of the buildings from time to time, and for the furnishing of the College from time to time; and as therefore these means were provided by Act of Parliament, he did not see why the public should be called upon to maintain the College. The new building was only half completed, and looked like a barn, and surely, in these days, when grants were given in aid of every description of education, to make us all ladies and gentlemen, it would be unfair and unjust to grudge an extra £5,000 for a College in which the most useful description of training was carried on, especially as an Act of Parliament clearly provided for this expenditure.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, the hon. Baronet was not asking for aid for a College which had failed in carrying out the intentions of those who founded it. A case could fairly be made out that the Colleges of Galway and Cork had failed, and a good case could be made out against spending any more of the public money on those institutions. But the Queen's College, Belfast, was a highly successful College, and apart altogether from the question of private benevolence Parliament was bound by the Act of Parliament establishing the College to repair, enlarge and improve the buildings from time to time. His hon. Friend the Member for North Belfast had made out a clear case. The late Government had spent so much on the buildings; that expenditure had left the buildings uncompleted, and therefore his hon. Friend was justified in asking for more. In the Report of the Queen's College, Belfast, for the year, the President complained that the College was still far from being properly equipped in respect to laboratories. The citizens of Belfast had contributed £32,000 towards the College, but that was not as much, according to the Secretary to the Treasury, as had been contributed in Cork. In the case of 145 Cork, however, the money had been left by a wealthy brewer.

§ MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)
I think it cannot be denied that the Queen's College, Belfast, has, of all the Irish Colleges, being most successful, and has most largely fulfilled the purposes for which it was founded. Looking at the Act which has been quoted, I think it is clear that responsibility in the matter rests with the Government. The Secretary to the Treasury said the late Government had proposals before them which they cut down by one-half. I believe that is true, and I believe also, speaking from memory, that the reason the proposal of the Irish Board of Works in this matter was cut down was because we thought it desirable to limit the amount to be put in the Estimates for the year to the sum that was likely to be expended in the year. The case laid before us was so overwhelming that it was impossible for us to refuse to do something. Reports from medical officers were furnished showing that cases of fainting had occurred amongst the students, if not amongst the teachers, owing to the unsanitary state of the rooms because of their crowded condition. It appeared to me then that the most practical way of dealing with the difficulty, so as to give the most immediate relief, was to divide the building into two, so that one part might be completed at one operation, and rendered available for use immediately after completion. But I cannot say that there was any positive refusal on our part to accept responsibility for the completion of the whole scheme as submitted. I think that if there is one class of expenditure which might be made in Ireland with advantage it is expenditure in the direction of promoting technical education, and you could find no more useful field for operation of that kind than in Belfast. Of course it is for the Government to make the last bargain they can with the people of Belfast; I do not blame them for trying to get public subscriptions for the College, but I say it would be false economy to refuse to spend £3,000 or £4,000 additional, which would really complete the scheme. Under the circumstances, I hope the Government will lend a favourable ear to the case made out by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Belfast.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) Derby
I rise to call the attention of the Committee to the time which has been spent over this matter.

§ MR. JACKSON
I did not occupy 10 minutes.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The hon. Baronet opposite spoke for more than half-an-hour. The right hon. Gentleman himself had to admit that all the present Government are doing is carrying out the plans of the late Government, arranged probably by himself, which promise that certain portions of these buildings shall be completed and no more. Here we are wasting time on a matter with regard to which no proposal has been made. The hon. Baronet has not proposed, and cannot propose, that an additional sum should be asked for this purpose. The hon. Baronet quoted an Act of Parliament, and the hon. Member for South Tyrone got up and repeated that Act of Parliament over and over again.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
Nothing of the kind.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
We have spent over an hour this time, and I must therefore protest against time, of which we have so little now, being taken up with these discussions when no additional money can be obtained at the present time.

§ SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)
I hope these Estimates will be discussed quite irrespective of Party considerations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that in the last Session of the last Parliament the whole of these Estimates were most indecently passed through this House without any discussion whatever. An abortive attempt was made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) to raise discussions, but the hon. Member was snuffed out by his Party—they were so anxious to get to the General Election. We are not in any particular hurry now, and we ought to have legitimate debate on the Estimates. I admit that this item has occupied a long time—["Hear, hear!"]—but Members of the Government must remember that there are Members who have not had for a long time the opportunity of bringing to account the Executive Government, either the present or the past. I hope 147 hon. Members will not be prohibited from doing their duty to their constituents, but will make such observations and ask such explanations from the Government as they are entitled to.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, there were one or two questions he wanted to ask. The first was in regard to the Galway and Clifden Railway. Would the Midland Railway Company of Ireland be spurred on to hasten these works. He had not been in favour of hurrying on the Midland Company, but now some three or four years had elapsed since the commencement of the railway, and it was time something should be done. With regard to the Tuam and Claremorris Railway, it appeared a sum of money for that railway would probably not be wanted until the 31st March, 1894, but he hoped there would be no delay regarding the opening or completion of it.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
remarked that it was usual for the Chief Secretary for Ireland annually to give a detailed explanation as to the progress that was made with these railways, and he thought that would be a suitable time to have the statement made.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, he had an Amendment to this Vote which he intended to move on the ground that under the altered circumstances it was not fair to the people of Great Britain to be asked to go on paying these large sums for light railways in Ireland. He heartily 148 supported the late Government in their proposals for the construction of these light railways, because he thought it was an excellent means of opening up and developing the resources of Ireland. Under the present circumstances he felt it was not fair, when they were going to alter the whole position of Ireland, that they should continue to vote these large sums, especially considering that there were many poor districts in England which greatly needed to have their resources developed. He moved to reduce the general Vote by £15,000.

THE CHAIRMAN
The Government are only asking for £8,676.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, then he would move to reduce the Vote by £5,000.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should seek to break faith even with the Irish people. They were bound to the payment of this money by Parliament. Both items which appeared in the Vote were pledged for this purpose by Parliament. One was pledged under the Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, and then under the Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889, they were obliged to provide a sum each year in the form of an annuity. In respect to the progress made in connection with the light railways in Ireland, he thought he could advance good reasons why he should give that account rather than the Chief Secretary. He (Sir J. T. Hibbert) had at Whitsuntide an opportunity of going over a considerable number of these light railways, and, therefore, he spoke not only of what he had heard from other people, but from the actual experience of his own inspection. Speaking generally, he must say that when these light railways came into actual operation they would perfectly justify the hopes and intentions of the late Government in undertaking the construction of them. Many of them traversed congested districts—districts, he might say, which had had no opportunity of receiving communication and accommodation in times past, and which he thought would be served very well indeed by these new railways. There were something like 12 of these railways, 149 and he went over five or six of them. He would take the information that appeared in his Return. The Donegal and Killybegs Line, which was 13 miles in length, had been inspected by the Board of Trade, and opened for passenger traffic a short time ago. The Stranorlar and Glenties Railway, 24 miles in length, would be opened in August, 1894. The Ballina and Killala Railway, eight miles, was opened last year. The Baltimore and Skibbereen, seven and a-half miles, was complete, and had been opened for traffic, as had also the Bantry Extension, two miles. The Downpatrick and Ardglass Railway, eight miles, was completed and opened for traffic some short time ago. The Headford and Kenmare line, 19¾ miles, was opened this month, and on the 15th inst. the Killorglin and Valentia Railway, 26¾ miles, would also be opened. The Westport and Mulrany Railway, 18 miles, and the Achill Extension, eight and a quarter miles, would be opened in January, 1894. With respect to the Achill Extension, he was glad to learn that arrangements had been all but completed with the Midland Railway Company for taking over the line. The Collooney and Claremorris Railway, 47¾ miles, would not be opened before August, 1895, but 43 miles were now up to the formation level. The Galway and Clifden Railway, 49¼ miles, was expected to be open in August, 1894. He agreed that it would be a wise thing if one portion of this railway, which was in an advanced state, could be opened before the remainder of the line was completed. He would do his best to bring pressure to bear on the different companies to push on the completion of these lines. It was important in the interests of the industries of Ireland that they should be completed as rapidly as possible, and no efforts would be spared to try to bring them to an early completion.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
Are not the Railway Companies under a penalty to complete them by the date specified?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
replied yes, or else they had to make out a very good case before any extension of time was granted them. He did not know that he could add anything more, except to promise that, so far as he could help the matter forward, he should do all he could. He did think that when com- 150 pleted these railways would prove of the greatest advantage to Ireland.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
asked, could the right hon. Gentleman make any statement about the contribution from the baronies, in regard to which he believed he contemplated some change?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, with regard to the contribution of 2 per cent. from the baronies, he was not in a position to give any definite information to the House, and he did not think it would be wise at present to do so. He might say, however, that the Treasury were conferring with the Irish Government as to the proposals the Treasury had made for a commutation of this 2 per cent. They thought that the commutation should be carried out voluntarily, and not compulsorily, and it would certainly relieve the cesspayers of the different baronies from very severe pressure. He hoped, before they met again in the Autumn, to bring forward their proposals, either by Amendment to the Bill of the hon. Member for West Kerry, or by means of a short Bill.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
inquired if these Companies responsible for the construction and equipment of the railways did not lose the grant unless they completed their work by a certain time? If not, the whole thing would be an utter absurdity.

§ MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)
expressed his pleasure at hearing the right hon. Gentleman say the late Government, in their policy with regard to these light railways, would be justified by the results. He was glad to learn that the question with regard to the Achill Railway was now almost definitely settled. He supposed it would be taken over and worked by the Midland and Great Western Railway in conjunction with the Westport and Mulrany Railway. It certainly would prove a very important extension; it would be a great benefit to the people of the district, who would be brought within reach of the markets, and he thought it would prove remunerative to the Railway Company. The hon. Member for Peterborough asked whether the Railway Companies were under penalties to complete the work by the specified dates. The position of the Railway Companies was this: By the Order in Council there was a limited time in which to complete the lines, and 151 unless they were able to give very good reason for this, they would be unable to obtain assent to an extension of the time. That in itself would be one of the very gravest penalties, because they would have spent of their own money probably one-third of the total cost, and they could earn nothing whatever on that capital expenditure until they got the line open; therefore, the Railway Companies themselves had the strongest inducement to push on the work. He was very glad to hear the different railways had approached so near to completion, and their experience, so far, had thoroughly justified the late Government in the arrangements they had made.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, the hon. Baronet the Member for West Kerry (Sir T. Esmonde) had, he understood, intended raising a question, and had risen before the retirement of the Chairman; but he was not now in his place. He (Mr. Russell) wished to say that nothing could be more satisfactory than the statement of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. T. Hibbert) on this matter. It was a clear statement, to which no one could take objection; it was, he would say in the first place, very satisfactory to those who had taken an interest in the light railways—and especially satisfactory was it to those who believed that those railways would be likely to carry out the ideas of their original promoters. They were told that of 13 railways guaranteed, eight were opened—or, at least, eight would be opened within this month—and five were in an unfinished state. Only one line occurred to him to say anything about—the Claremorris, Collooney, and Swinford branch of the Galway and Clifden Railway. The last they heard of it the contractor and the Railway Company were fighting, and matters were brought to a standstill. He would like to know how the work was progressing, and was it progressing at all?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, the works had started again.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, he was glad. Was there, then, a fair chance of the line being opened in the course of 1895?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
Yes.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, that was satisfactory. With regard to the Clifden and Galway line, it was the longest line, and they could not expect that it would be opened very soon; but he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that a great deal could be done to the open part of the line. It was most important that the tourist traffic should be developed—the smallest accommodation was important. If 20 miles of the railway was ready for opening, they should be opened. He understood there was a difficulty in the way with regard to a bridge outside Galway.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
Corrig?

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, that was the bridge he referred to. It was near Galway. Why should they not, if there was any difficulty, make a temporary, bridge outside Galway and run on the trains? He understood from a prospectus which he had seen that something had been done towards the development of tourist traffic by Mr. Crossley; and, as the question was of enormous importance to the district, he thought that might be done. If his suggestion were adopted, a great boon would be conferred upon the locality. He was glad that the policy of the late Government was being maintained by the present one. There was one other question which he thought ought to be referred to. It was a very sad subject—that of the calamity which happened on the Dingle Railway. This line was in the constituency of the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Esmonde), and he regretted he was not here to call attention to the matter. It was one of the saddest railway calamities that had happened in Ireland. He would say that it was an accident of a very singular character; and, as far as he could see, it was due to the state of the railway.

§ MR. J. MORLEY
was understood to say the inexperience of the driver had something to do with it.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, the inexperience of the driver might have had something to do with it; buts in his opinion, it was due in a great degree to the condition of the line.

§ MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)
said, on a point of Order, he would ask the Chairman whether on 21st July, 1881, Mr. Flynn was speaking on this very Vote, and referring to a matter of this kind— 153 the bad condition of a railway—when the Chairman at the time (Mr. Courtney) ruled that the question was not relevant to the Vote, being a matter only in the power of the Railway Company, and under their administration?

THE CHAIRMAN
I was just about to interrupt the hon. Member for Tyrone. There can be no doubt about the ruling referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Knox). It is necessary for the hon. Member for South Tyrone to bring it home to the Government before he can be considered in Order.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, he was going, not upon the general Light Railway Votes, but under Sub-section A, where £2,500 was voted towards the Dingle Railway—

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, he hoped the hon. Member would allow him to finish. The railway was badly managed, and they were called upon to vote £2,500 towards it. That being so, he thought they were entitled to raise the question on this Vote.

§ MR. J. MORLEY
, on a point of Order, submitted that the asking for £2,500 did not associate or connect the Government with the management of the line.

THE CHAIRMAN
It is clear, I think, that the Government are not responsible for the administration or management of this railway. The hon. Member is, therefore, out of Order in referring to the matter.

§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)
But, Sir—

THE CHAIRMAN
I have ruled the point of Order. It is very inconvenient that Members should rise in this manner after I have ruled a point.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, of course, he would accept the ruling of the Chairman. But he did think it was not a proper thing to prevent discussion; and he was sorry that the Nationalist Members should prevent the discussion of a matter of such importance. On the general policy, therefore, he thought the statement of the hon. Gentleman was exceedingly satisfactory and encouraging; and he was glad that the policy inaugurated by the late Government was being continued by their successors.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
said, he recognised, as other Members did, the satisfactory character of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made to the Committee, as well as the courtesy with which he received observations that came from that (the Opposition) side of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman's example were followed by other right hon. Gentlemen it would expedite the passing of these Votes. He wanted to ask with regard to the Donegal Railway—Stranorlar to Glenties. This line had made very little progress since March last, when the last statement regarding it was made. The right hon. Gentleman then told them that he was not satisfied with the progress made, and that he would do what he could do in the matter. He did not blame him if his efforts had not been successful, because he was sure there were difficulties, and the responsibility must be laid on the contractors. He told them in March that 34½ miles was the length of the line, and that it had progressed to the extent of 17 miles of the foundation level. Since then, he took it, further progress had been made with the foundation level. He did not know whether the progress had been satisfactory; but he desired to know whether the matters referred to in the Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland regarding the line had been settled?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
Yes.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
said, the only other question he had to put was as to the Ardglass line, and the question as to the pier there. Had that question been settled?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
Yes.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
said, that was all he wished to know.

§ MR. THORNTON (Clapham)
said, he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had gone over the Skibbereen line.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
No.

§ MR. THORNTON
said, he had gone over that railway, and the people there desired him to express their view that the work was very imperfect for the object that was in view. At Baltimore, where the line ran to, the works were unfinished. It was understood that the original design provided greater facilities for the landing of fish. When the boats came in, the fish had to be 155 thrown up and then removed to the railway, generally in a broken condition. This should be remedied by constructing a pier, and it could be done at a comparatively small cost, as the distance was only about 100 yards, and the expenditure would be a very useful one. At present, £56,000 had been expended without attaining the object desired. He believed an additional £7,000 would do all that was required, and if it were done the undertaking would be carried through and made successful. He would say that, looking at the work which was carried on at Baltimore, with its Fishery School, something was owing to the memory of the late Father Davis.

§ MR. THORNTON
said, it was just to the memory of Father Davis, and what he did in that district towards the development of industry, that the line should be placed in a more satisfactory condition. The Baltimore railway promised to improve the fisheries there, and he was sure they would all like to see it completed and made as useful as possible.

§ SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.)
was understood to urge the Government not to starve these Light Railways. In the case of the Donegal and Stranorlar line, which would be of enormous advantage to the chief congested district in the country, he wished to know if it would be connected with the narrow gauge line to Strabane? He also desired to know if there was any prospect of a line being constructed to Falcarragh. It seemed to him it would be a great advantage if they could make the system more complete than it was. Great Britain might object to find the necessary funds for opening up all the congested districts; but for his own part he believed that the expenditure of British capital was due to Ireland in this direction. It was 10 years since he had brought the matter before the Chief Secretary of that day—the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for Scotland—and it had taken the intervening period to get the Government up to the mark. He was thankful to think that they had risen to the crisis they ought to have faced years ago.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
hoped that the Committee would consent to go to a Division on that question so that the next important point may be reached. He agreed with the hon. Member for South Tyrone as to the importance of opening up the district from Cong to Oughterard, and he had made a suggestion to the Railway Company that they should consider the desirability of making such extension. With regard to the Skibbereen Railway, it was a matter for consideration in the future whether the connection referred to should not be completed. No doubt the result of such connection would be very advantageous.