MR. FETHERSIONHAUGHTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what amount of public money was spent in the construction of the canal at Cong, county May:, intended to join Loughs Mask and Corrib; is this canal, from absence of water, at present entirely useless; has the Canal Commission invited evidence as to this canal and its utility to Ballinrobe and the district abutting on Lough Mask if it were put in order; and, if not, will he direct the attention of the Commission to the matter.
(Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Board of Works that they have not the materials for stating the amount spent on the canal at Cong, because this canal formed part of a larger scheme which was only partially carried out, and the records available do not distinguish the amount spent on this part of the works from that which was spent on other parts. The scheme provided for both drainage and navigation. The expenditure on the navigation works of that part of the scheme which included the Cong Canal was £10,583, and the Government bore the whole of this charge. The canal was left unfinished. It is useless for navigation owing to the absence of water, which absence of water is due to the fact that the canal was made through limestone which turned out to be fissured. I understand that the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways, besides inviting evidence by notices in the newspapers, also invited evidence directly through the County Council of Galway and the town of Galway, and heard Professor Town-send, the engineer and secretary of the Lough Corrib Navigation, and also Mr. Perry, county surveyor of Galway. I am informed by the secretary of the Commission that if any persons interested in this particular canal still desire to give evidence on the subjects they should address themselves to the Commission, when their applications will be fully considered.