Is it not possible to present all these Returns in a complete volume together?

^* : I think the course suggested by the hon. Member is a very desirable one. The reason why they are moved for in their present form is that we are asked by the County Councils to proceed as rapidly as possible, and as soon as the Return for each county is complete, we come down to the House and move for a Return. I will see whether they may not be given together in a complete form when all the counties are finished.

Is it not possible to deposit them in the public libraries of the country?

^* : That is a matter which does not rest with us, but with the Treasury.

I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £1,000, being the salary of the Chairman of the Board of Works, and my object in doing so is to call attention to a matter of considerable importance affecting my own constituency, namely, the Lough Erne drainage scheme. I propose to explain what that drainage scheme is, how it came to be undertaken, and what my reasons are for moving this reduction in connection with the mal-administration of the scheme which has undoubtedly taken place. I do not think the Government will deny that there has been mal-administration. In the first place, the people of the locality petitioned for a drainage scheme, and the Board of Works caused an inquiry to be made, and they are responsible for carrying out the plans and for seeing that the Estimates were sufficient. After the inquiry was held in the locality they decided that a drainage district should be constituted; that certain lands mentioned in the Schedule should be included, and that certain persons should form the Drainage Board. The persons chosen were almost exclusively representatives of the landlords, and among them was Mr. Frederick Ridge, now a member of the Land Commission, who was at the time agent of Lord Lanesborough. It was the duty of the Board to see that the money was expended for the benefit of the district, to ascertain, as soon as the works were completed, the total cost, including the interest which had accrued, and then to divide it among the reputed proprietors in proportion to the value of the improvement so far as it affected the land. The petition for the scheme was first launched in 1879, and the Board of Works sent down an engineer—Mr. Thomas Hawkesley—to conduct the inquiry. Mr. Hawkesley prepared an Estimate, giving the entire cost at £104,000, but the scheme was supposed to have a certain value for navigation purposes as well as for drainage, and on that account it was agreed that £30,000 should be contributed by the Treasury. Upon that Estimate the Board of Works drew up an Order and constituted a Drainage Board, placing Mr. Ridge upon it, who went there, as he has said himself, with the direct object of obstructing and putting an end, if possible, to the scheme. The works were directed to be completed within five years, but they occupied 10 years, and the locality found themselves burdened with £180,500 instead of £74,000. A great want of business capacity was displayed by the Board. In the first place they appointed a Scotch contractor.

I have no wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but I wish to remark that the Board of Works were not responsible for carrying out the scheme.

I understand that they paid the money.

They only advanced it.

If I am wrong in my reading of a very complicated Act of Parliament, I think it only shows that it requires to be amended, if not repealed altogether. Whatever was the form of the mal-administration, whether it was in consequence of the action of Mr. Ridge or the Board of Works in Dublin, it is an undoubted fact that there was mal-administration. A Scotch contractor was employed, who did little or nothing towards carrying out the scheme. The signatures of his sureties were never obtained to the contract, and when he ultimately threw up the contract the Local Board found they had no remedy. The result of this jobbery of one kind and another has been to double the cost of the works. In the year 1887 the amount spent became so alarming that the Grand Jury of the County of Fermanagh, by a large majority, demanded an inquiry at Enniskillen, upon oath, into the whole circumstances of the case. That inquiry has never been granted, but it is still demanded by the people of the district, by the landlords as well as the tenants; and I venture to think that it would be extremely useful, not only to the people of the district, but as a guide to this House for future legislation. The work having been completed, an award has been made, a copy of which I hold in my hand. The Board of Works give in one column the increase in the value of the land which has resulted from carrying out the scheme; and in another column they set out what is to be paid by each proprietor. The repayment of the capital sum is spread over 49 years, and there is a charge for the maintenance of the works. The net result is that the sum which has to be paid every year by the proprietors is almost exactly equal to the sum which the Board of Works estimate to be the value of the improvement. The farmers say that although there may be some improvement it will be very trifling, and they are living now in imminent fear that their rents will be raised to pay for it, because Clause 46 of the Act of 1863 allows an application to be made, in certain cases, for an increase of rent where expenditure has been incurred for drainage improvements, and where no judicial rents have been fixed. I am not quite sure whether it can be done where judicial rents have been fixed, and I would certainly advise the tenants to raise the point in a Court of Law. But, in any case, there are numerous tenants who will have to pay charges which, in some instances, are greater than the total value of the land they occupy. It is not the fault of the people that this expenditure was incurred. They were not represented upon the Board, and certainly they would never have chosen a man like Mr. Ridge. The Local Board was originally appointed by the Board of Works without consulting the people, and year by year, as vacancies occurred, they were filled up by the proprietors, and not by the occupiers. Lord Lanesborough, before the award was made, tried to get his tenants to make agreements for sale before they knew that this charge was to be placed on the land. If these agreements had been entered into the tenants would have been bankrupt in a very short time, and the fact that such a proposal should have been made throws some light on the character of Mr. Wrench. Lord Lanesborough has not been regarded as a bad landlord, and I cannot but think it was by the advice of Mr. Wrench that he attempted to play this dirty trick on the tenants. It is clear that the tenants have had no share in incurring the burden. There has been mal-administration, or there was an insufficient estimate. From whatever cause, however, the amount levied is more than twice what it was originally thought would be levied. Under these circumstances, we have a strong case against the Board of Works, and the Imperial Government as represented by the Board of Works. I beg to move the reduction of the salary of the President of the Board of Works by £1,000 in order to call attention to the mal-administration of the Board of Works, first, in passing an insufficient estimate; secondly, in appointing a Board not capable of carrying out the works; and, thirdly, in not spending moneys wisely for the benefit of the locality.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £1,000, part of the Salary of the Chairman of the Board."—( Mr. Knox. )

I rise to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend for the reduction of the Vote, and to protest against the incompetence of the Board of Works. The officers of the Board of Works seem to be incapable of initiating, executing, or finishing any public work. They are always muddling what they take in hand, and as the Church long ago was the happy hunting-ground of incompetents of a certain class, so the Board of Works now seems to be the happy hunting-ground of incompetent men who could not earn an honest living in any other sphere. The Board squanders public money, and its servants, who have ear-wigged and button-holed themselves into office, produce the smallest amount of result for the largest amount of outlay. In fact, it is a disgrace to the English administration of Ireland. The estimates for which it is responsible are nothing more or less than guess-work. Any private firm in this country which had such men as its servants would dismiss them if they presented estimates like those prepared by the engineers of the Board of Works in Ireland. With reference to the Lough Erne drainage scheme, I am sorry to say I am one of the men who are taxed unduly for it in the locality. The lake is 52 miles long, and, owing to the continued loss of crops by floods, an effort was made about 15 years ago to drain it. The first estimate of the cost was £69,000, but the Board thought that was too low an amount, and the matter dropped for some time. In 1888 a Court presided over by Mr. Roberts, then County Surveyor of Sligo, but now a member of the Board of Works, was held in Enniskillen, the county town of Fermanagh, and an estimate of £104,000 was submitted by Mr. Hawkesley. On that estimate the landlords gave their assent, a Drainage Board was formed, and the drainage proceeded with. The estimate was divided into two portions—£30,000 for navigation, and the remainder for arterial drainage. When the works were completed, to the amazement of every taxpayer they were found to have cost £210,000, or more than double the original estimate, and the Board of Works sanctioned the payment of this sum. There was nothing unusual in the character of the work to account for the estimate being so far exceeded. My opinion is that the officials who sanctioned such an outlay should be cashiered and drummed out of the public service. The last award of the Board of Works assessed £7,262 per annum, and £1,000 a year for maintenance, making £8,262 per annum for 49 years on 17,500 acres said to be affected by the drainage. This is an average of 9s. 6d. an acre on good and bad land alike for half a century. In some cases it is equal to, if not more, than the rent. The whole district has been in a state of consternation since the award was made. Many of the poor farmers will be ruined if they can be legally called upon to pay. Personally, I am the holder, as tenant, of some land in the district on which the tax will be 15s. an acre, and rather than pay it I will certainly give up the land. But what is to become of men who have nothing to live on but their farms? A sovereign is valuable, but it is not worth 40s. The drainage scheme may have been value for £74,000, but it is not value for £180,000. The cure is, indeed, worse than the disease. To all parties the outlay is unjust. It is unjust to the landlords who assented to an estimate for £104,000, and however bad landlords may be, the Government has no right to treat them unjustly. It is unjust also to the tenants that they should be taxed for expenditure over which they had no control, either personally or by delegation. This excessive expenditure has disturbed the relations of landlords and tenants, not merely as regards the rent, but also as regards the prospects of sale under the Bill now before the House, and also as regards sales arranged for but not completed under the Ashbourne Acts. Those who have bought under those Acts in ignorance of the taxation that has been imposed upon them are simply wild, and feel that they have been entrapped. They thought that the Government would have stood between them and such an extravagant outlay. I wish to show what incompetence has marked the action of the Local Drainage Board. They advertised for a contractor and got a Scotch contractor, who did a little work and took away with him £2,129. Seeing it was not a very good job he simply walked away. It was found that Mr. Pomeroy, the aristocratic local Secretary of the Board, who took the money, but I suppose did not want to earn it, had not got the securities signed, so that the Board was unable to inflict any penalty on the contractor. Mr. Pomeroy was, however, continued in his position as Secretary, and he has taken £900 out of the award. Just imagine any private establishment permitting such a man to remain Secretary. Having no contractor, the Board let the easy part of the work to a new contractor and became contractors themselves for the most difficult part of the work. Mr. Price, who not long since lost his situation under the Midland Railway Company of Ireland, took away £7,085 for his contract. One item appears in the accounts as follows:—"Trespass, right of way, solicitor's costs, £28,654."Just imagine that! The fact is the money came easy, and they let it go easy. The works are still in an unfinished condition. Surely the least the Board of Works should have done would have been to see that the works were finished. The Local Board seek now to impose a sum of £1,000 a year for maintenance. It is not maintenance at all. They intend to finish the work out of it, and to give the Local Secretary, who messed the job, £100 a year as long as he is alive. The irresponsible Local Board squanders the public money, and the Board of Works pays the piper. The Government now expect that men who are already paying too much rent should pay this monstrous tax. I am almost tempted to say I hope they will not, but I refrain from saying that. I do not know, however, how the people of the locality will be able to pay this additional tax. I have here a resolution passed at a public meeting at Enniskillen Court-house a week or 10 days ago asking for a public inquiry into the matter. I say the very least the Government can do is to give a public inquiry. It is not an unreasonable thing to ask, and it is a necessary thing if it be true, as I believe it is, that the final award made by Mr. Roberts, the officer of the Board of Works, was made upon data which were not vouched for by audit, date, or signature. I implore the Government to grant an inquiry on behalf, not only of the Nationalists, but on behalf of the loyal supporters who have stuck to them through good report and evil report. These are the men who are the primary complainers in this case. They ask for an inquiry before you pauperise the community by imposing this 9s. 6d. tax. What you ought to do is to pay down the money, and I ask the Government to do so. They are paying large amounts for the Shannon and the Suck, but Fermanagh has got nothing, and the least the Government can do is to pay the money down. I support the Motion for a reduction.

I wish to join in the protest made by the hon. Member, because other drainage schemes are under consideration, and what happened in this case may occur in other cases. It is most extraordinary that an estimate for £104,000 should have grown into an expenditure of 210,000. Who was responsible for the making of this contract? Was it the Drainage Board or the Board of Works? If the Drainage Board, had the Board of Works no control whatever over the matter? It is certain that the people in the locality had no control; all they did was to sanc- tion the smaller estimate, and now they are called upon to pay more than double the amount. I know that the Board of Works charges the amount on the respective proprietors, but that is only in the first instance, because the proprietors in their turn get an order charging the sum upon the occupiers. I know of a drainage scheme in my own district for which the occupiers have been called upon to pay. They have paid willingly, because they got value for their money. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to throw some light on the question of responsibility, in the interest of future drainage schemes, which are badly wanted. It certainly is not a good beginning that the estimate of cost should prove to be less than half the actual outlay. I think the responsibility must rest with the Board of Works. I am not going to make any charge against that Board, further than that it is either most incompetent or most unfortunate. I have never visited any part of Ireland where I have not heard every class of the community protesting against the Board of Works. Now, the whole community may be wrong, and the Board of Works may be right, but I do not think that the right is altogether on the side of the Board. The Secretary to the Treasury ought to look into the matter, for it is most undesirable that the new purchasers under the Ashbourne Act should have this extra levy of 9s. 6d. thrown upon them. I shall support the reduction.

^* (5.5.) : I do not think there is any question as to the correctness of the figures which have been quoted, either in regard to the original estimate or to the actual cost. The whole question turns upon one fact, whether the Board of Works or the Local Drainage Board is responsible. The real difficulty is not one of administration by the Board of Works, but a question of the law which the Board merely carries out. But there can be no doubt that the responsibility for what has happened does not rest with the Board of Works, but entirely with the Local Drainage Board. An Act was passed in 1863 with the object of removing from the Government and the Board of Works the responsibility for carrying out the drainage works. The distinct intention was to give the local people the full control.

The local landlords.

^* : At all events, the control was given to the persons who were responsible for the repayment of the money. Surely that was not unreasonable, and itself a good security that the work would be carried out as economically as possible. The initiative, as Lord Crichton's Commission of 1878 reported, was left entirely to the proprietors, the desire being that they should carry out the work with the least amount of official control; they having, however, placed at their disposal the advice and experience of the Board of Works, and public money being advanced for the undertaking. After the plans and estimates have been prepared, the Board of Works send down an Inspector to hold a local inquiry, at which all interested parties are heard. The duties this Inspector has to discharge are defined by Statute law; and the Board of Works is only responsible for seeing that he is a competent man. Upon his Report the Board of Works has to say if the scheme is one that should be carried out.

The Board of Works are called upon to sanction the estimates as well as the plans.

^* : They have no responsibility for the amount of the estimate beyond checking the figures supplied to them. It is not for me to excuse the large excess of the actual expenditure over estimate in this particular case. I contend that the responsibility for that does not rest with the Board of Works; it lies entirely with the Local Drainage Board, the names of the members of which are included in the first scheme submitted to the Board of Works. Those names are chosen by the Memorialists who petition for authority for the scheme. The hon. Member for Cavan spoke of the Board of Works having appointed Mr. Hawkesley, the engineer. Mr. Hawkesley stands high in the engineering world. He has a great reputation. The hon. Member has spoken in a light and airy way of the difficulties of dealing with boulder clay under water. Those who have had any engineering expe- rience know it is not such an easy matter to deal with it.

I said lie knew the boulder clay was there and would have to be dealt with.

^* : I was told a year ago that there was an enormous amount of it to be dealt with. A large amount of hard rock was unexpectedly met with, then there were heavy claims for compensation, and a large amount was spent in litigation. From what I have seen of drainage works in Ireland I have come to the conclusion that they ought only to be entered upon after very careful consideration, for there has been scarcely one of them which it has been found possible to keep within the original design, or to carry out at anything like the original estimate.

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to "light and airy" statements, but, surely, nothing could be less light and airy than the fact that the original estimate for this scheme has been exceeded and the outlay proved to be more than double that estimate. The right hon. Gentleman has proceeded on the assumption that the Board of Works has no responsibility for this. Is that so? If it is, then I ask what is the good of having a Board of Works? If £250,000 is to be taken from the Board of Works and handed over to Local Bodies simply because they cry "Shovel out the sovereigns, hang the expense," and if the unfortunate occupiers are subsequently to be called upon to repay money which has been expended without proper supervision, then what is the use of the Board of Works? It is really absurd. At one time you cannot extract a paltry sum of £5 10s. for repairing some public work, although the expenditure of that sum would have saved £12,000, yet in this case enormous sums are forthcoming and the Board of Works take no responsibility.

^* : The money was advanced on certain security.

There speaks the spirit which permeates these transaction. As long as the British Treasury have the power to screw the cash out of the tenants of Ireland they do not care how it is expended.

^* : The landlords give the security.

Yes, the charge is upon the landlords in the first instance; but they have power under the Act to shift the burden to the shoulders of the occupiers. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the tenants of the counties of Cavan and Monaghan will submit to an addition of 15s. an acre to their rent in order to pay for jobbery of this kind? Knowing what I do of the people of Cavan, who are good, honest Celtic people, I believe they will not pay it. I say it is a public scandal that the Drainage Board, composed as it is, should have had so much money handed over to it to spend. The right hon. Gentleman disclaims all responsibility for the Board of Works; but surely its duty is to prevent estimates being exceeded as in this case. The Board ought to have seen that the work was properly executed. The Drainage Board is very similar to the Grand Jury. That body makes roads and constructs bridges, and does not care what jobbery is perpetrated, for it does not have to pay the money. In the same way, the Board of Works lends out money for these schemes to landlords who do not have to pay a shilling of the expenditure.

^* : If the hon. and learned Member inquires into the matter he will find that the burden does not necessarily fall on the tenant. He is inaccurate when he says the landlords do not have to pay any money.

The Board of Works has the power of fixing what the tenant shall pay, and how does the Board fix it? It sends a young gentleman down to the county. He calls on several landlords, spends a few days in the district, and having found out the total charge spreads it like butter on bread over the entire district. And that is called ascertaining the charge on the tenants. I should not complain so bitterly were it not for the fact that this year we were enabled to pass through this House a small Bill which would have remedied this system, but it was choked in the Upper House, although the Government might have secured its passing if they liked. Its clauses were taken out of a Drainage Bill of their own, and it was not, therefore, a revolutionary Land League proposal. Last year we had good reason to complain of the jobbery, mal-administration, and excessive ex- penditure of the Drainage Board. The Board was constituted in order to serve the purposes of the landlords and their agents. The Government gave us a pledge last year that they would effect some improvement in the administration of the Board of Works, but they have done nothing in the matter. Of course, we could not expect the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, with his multifarious duties, to exercise effective control over the Board of Works, and, therefore, we suggested that it should be brought under the control of some Irish Department. On the 14th of July, 1890, the right hon. Gentleman said ( Hansard , Third Series, Vol. CCCXLVI., page 1,643)—

"It may be that some better plan might be found than that of making the Secretary to the Treasury answer for the Board of Works in Ireland That is a question of policy which has been present in the minds of the Government for some time, and possibly arrangements might be made which would give the Government the assistance of some one with more detailed knowledge of the works of the Board than the Secretary to the Treasury can have."

That was a year ago. From that time to the present have the Government done anything to carry out that pledge? No, Sir, and they have not carried it out. The fact is that English Ministers are quite satisfied with their day's work, and do not care to add to it. They cannot take anything like the paternal interest in our country which any man who was racy of the soil would do. This is a serious question for the occupiers in this locality. Are they to pay this £210,000? If so, it will create a great grievance in the district. The hon. Member for Clare (Mr. Jordan) says he will surrender his land. Of course he can do so, being a tenant from year to year, but if he were a leaseholder he could not surrender it. What is the humble occupier who has no other means of livelihood than his farm to do? Is he to be turned out of his farm because he cannot pay for jobbery of this kind? Mr. Price certainly made more out of the drainage scheme than he made out of the Midland Railway of Ireland. It is certainly not more than two years since he lost his place under the railway company, and I gather that he has got £7,000 out of the Drainage Board. Had not the Government better remit this money altogether? If they will not do this, will they wipe off part of the sum and fix the amount somewhere between the estimate and the actual expenditure, or will they make the landlords pay the entire sum? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not allow these districts to be harassed and driven almost into a state of insurrection over this unfortunate case. I hope, at all events, that if the tenants are made to pay, they will pay no more than their land will have gained by the scheme. The principle that the Board of Works has hitherto gone upon is practically to levy the charge on the farms of the tenants, and as this is a very large impost, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see that some steps are taken in connection with it.

The right hon. Gentleman says the Board of Works act under Statute. That is, of course, a truism, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has not given the Committee the full effect of the statute under which they do act. We say the Board of Works are responsible for the estimate which is approved by their Inspectors, and are responsible for the men who are appointed to carry out the work. If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the statute he will see that if the Board of Works had done what they are bound to do by statute, they would not have let the district get into the present condition. Under the statute, the Inspector is in no case to be the same person who has previously reported to the petitioners. The Board of Works say that they appointed Mr. Thomas Hawkesley as Inspector to hold an inquiry. I think the right hon. Gentleman has been misinformed on this point, and it is possible we have unearthed another job, because Mr. Hawkesley first inquired into the matter, and then went down as Inspector.

That is not the case.

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is incredulous of any charge of mal-administration. Of course, Mr. Hawkesley is an eminent engineer, and I do not want to say he was guilty of jobbery, but I do say that if the Board of Works acted as the reports show they did, they have been guilty of the grossest mal-administration. I think that as this gentleman was appointed by the Board of Works, we have a strong case for saying the Board of Works are responsible for the estimate. The right hon. Gentleman denied that the Board of Works appointed the members of the Local Drainage Board, but it is bound expressly to do so by the terms of the statute, which says, "The Members of the first Drainage Board shall be named by the Commissioners." Under the circumstances, I say we have a strong case for an inquiry on oath into this mal-administration. It is a very serious thing that a charge, amounting altogether to over £180,000 should be placed upon the occupiers of these 17,000 acres. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the amount will only be the improved value of the land, but that really means nothing. The Board of Works knows that this is a glaring instance of its mal-administration. It is the largest drainage scheme that has been carried out in Ireland. The Board is well acquainted with the many failures which have taken place in other districts. Between the years 1848 and 1860 advances to the extent of £2,500,000 were made for these drainage schemes, and so wastefully was the money used that at least £1,000,000 of this money had to be remitted. So it will be with at least half of the present amount. I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Longford on one point. He seems to think that because there are some Orangemen in Fermanagh the money will be found there. I do not think the money will be better found by Orangemen than by our own supporters. I have had more complaints on the subject from Tories than from my own supporters, and the Tories are just as averse to pay the money as are the Nationalists. Two landlords—Mr. Porter, who is not attached to any party, and Mr. Graham, who is a Conservative—refuse to pay and are going to force the Commissioners, to sell them up rather than pay. If the landlords refuse to pay how much more will the tenants refuse? The tenants have everything to lose by the imposition of this tax, and they know that if the money has to be paid in the locality their chance of purchasing on any fair terms will be taken away from them. The very least that can be demanded is an inquiry by an impartial tribunal. If the Board of Works has no responsibility they should court inquiry; but if they resist it the inference is that they fear the disclosures an inquiry will bring. If they do decline to grant an inquiry, I think the people of the district will be amply justified in refusing to pay the charge.

I regret exceedingly that my manner and bearing seem to Gentlemen opposite to be so light and airy. It is a very serious matter and by no means one of a light and airy character. It is no pleasure to me to come down to the House and address the Committee, but I am compelled to do so by the sense of responsibility that presses upon me. I am neither an official nor am I paid to advocate the cause of the people. I come here because I am one of the people and know their wants. I am sorry that my speech made such a light impression upon the right hon. Gentleman. As I have said, there were no unforeseen natural causes for this large excess of the expenditure over the estimate. The engineer who went down to inspect the place ought to have seen the condition of affairs. I am not here to cast reflections on Mr. Hawkesley or any other engineer, and I should be doing so if I assumed that he did not estimate properly for the work to be done. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted the whole case, but has said that the Board of Works is not responsible. I cannot understand how it is they are not responsible. The person sent down to hold the inquiry had as much right to express an opinion on the estimates as on the plans and specifications. Mr. Roberts actually refused to sanction a lock which it was proposed to put across Lough Erne. If he could do that surely he could refuse to pass the estimates. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would come down and see the lough. We would treat him kindly; he need not be afraid. I hold that the Board of Works have made themselves responsible for these Estimates and for the very large and excessive outlay that has taken place. Has the right hon. Gentleman no remedy to offer to the people of the locality for this admitted grievance? Surely he is not going to tax them with such a vast sum of money as this. When he has admitted the grievance, the least we can expect from him is an inquiry. I think an inquiry would end in the Treasury itself providing the £106,000 excess over the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman is not treating us as he ought to do. Has he no concern for the loyal and Orange voters of the country? Will he give no redress to people who are threatened with fresh taxation to such an enormous extent that they will not be able to pay it?

It seems to me that the case made out by my hon. Friend is absolutely unanswerable. He has proved beyond a doubt that the Board of Works are responsible for the scheme. Are they not responsible for the official they sent round? Are they not also responsible for the appointment of the Local Drainage Board? No denial on the part of the right hon. Gentleman will absolve the Board of Works from responsibility for this terrible muddle and this mismanaged scheme. If it be proved to the Committee, as I think it has been proved to demonstration, that the charge of 9s. 6d. an acre would have to be met by the present occupants, what then are the Government going to do? My hon. Friends do not ask the Treasury to wipe off this £100,000 at once, though they have a just claim to do that—all they ask is that the right hon. Gentleman will order an inquiry on the spot into the entire circumstances of the case. Surely nothing could be fairer than that. Hon. Members from the South of Ireland, with myself, pressed the question of Bally-cotton Pier upon the right hon. Gentleman. The Chief Secretary at first refused to do anything, but after he had visited the spot the Commissioners made a Report in favour of doing part, though not all, of what we asked. That was the result of an inquiry on the spot by the right hon. Gentleman, assisted by a capable man, an independent expert, on behalf of the Board of Works. I think my hon. Friends will be justified in dividing the Committee, considering the terrible grievance suffered by those whom they represent, and if they do not get redress this Session, I hope they will persist in pressing the matter on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman until justice is done to the inhabitants.

I think we are justified in pressing the right hon. Gentleman upon this point. I agree with my hon. Friend it is very hard to get anything out of the Board of Works. In Ireland, rightly or wrongly, I think the Board of Works is a big jobbing and robbing institution. There you have all sorts of jobbery perpetrated at the expense of the unfortunate taxpayers and ratepayers of the country. This is one of the biggest schemes ever perpetrated by this jobbing Board of Works in Ireland, which have authority to charge 9s. 6d. per acre, and it may reach about 15s.an acre. The right hon. Gentleman in Committee of Supply up to the present year has shown himself considerate when we have been able to make bonâfide charges against any portion of his Department. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the light and airy way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Clare spoke, but I remember that when we pressed the question of Bally-cotton Pier upon the attention of the Minister we were sneered at in a similar manner. But when the Grand Jury of the County of Cork, consisting of Tories, took this matter up, the right hon. Gentleman went down to the place quickly. In this instance I understand that the original estimate for the drainage works was £104,000, but the actual cost has been £210,000, and whereas it was stated that the work would not occupy five years, it has taken 10 years. Really, if we were to go into this Vote in a conscientious manner, we should be occupied upon it for the next week. It is not our purpose to delay the progress of the Estimates upon any particular point. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some small satisfaction, and then we will be able to meet him in a friendly spirit, and get through these Votes rapidly. I hope he will give us some assurance that an inquiry will be granted into this matter. Charges have been made, and it would be better for all parties concerned if there were a simple inquiry.

^* (6.10.) : I do not understand what good object would be served by an inquiry; further, I do not think we have the power to hold one. I have no desire in any way to stand between hon. Members and their desire for the fullest information, and I say frankly and at once, that I am ready to give any information which hon. Members may desire. If I had the power to grant such an inquiry as that which is desired, I do not see what good purpose it would serve. If hon. Members will specify what further information they want I will most willingly do all in my power to get it for them.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could give us the information which we desire. Take one point. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of the discussion said the fault was that of the engineer.

I did not say that. I said that unforeseen difficulties had arisen.

But our point is that the engineering difficulties were not of a kind which could not easily have been foreseen when the estimate was made and approved by the Board of Works. That is a question to which it is impossible to get any satisfactory answer across the floor of the House. The only way of ascertaining that fact is by a local inquiry by a competent person. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in offering all the information in his, power; but what we want is some form of inquiry. I will cite the precedent of the inquiry, held in 1886, into the working of the Act for the relief of distressed unions in the West of Ireland. That inquiry resulted in getting at the main facts of the mal-administration. I believe inquiry in the present case would result in getting at the facts. As the question stands, there is a difference of opinion as to who is responsible. There has undoubtedly been a great deal of blundering, for which the tenants of the whole country will have to suffer. We want to fix the responsibility for that blunder. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to put it on the Local Board, but I think he cannot get out of the matter in that way. The Local Board is created by the Board of Works. I will again read the Act.

I do not deny that the Board of Works is responsible for constituting the Local Board, but the Local Board is responsible for its own works and for looking after all the details, and not the Board of Works.

But the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary appoints the Prisons Board, but the Home Department is responsible. Surely we know that the various Departments are responsible, though they delegate their powers. The Act says—

"The members of the first Drainage Board shall be named by the Commissioners, by order, constituting the Drainage Board, and such order shall fix the number of which the Board is to consist, the mode of summoning the first meeting of the Board, the qualification of subsequent members of the Board, and the time at which the first and subsequently appointed members are to vacate their offices."

Surely there never was a body in the world more directly the creation of another Board than this Local Board is the creation of the Board of Works in Ireland. We only want to get at the facts. There is a plain question arising: Are the Board of Works responsible for the acts of the body they have created? The facts can only be got at by local inquiry, and in that demand we are backed by a resolution of the Grand Jury of the County Fermanagh, who four years ago demanded such an inquiry as we are now demanding. I venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make us some satisfactory answer. If he refuses, we can only draw the conclusion that the Board of Works have from the beginning of this matter been jobbing the public money, laying such a terrible burden upon the people that they are afraid to open the inquiry.

I am very sorry that the hon. Member has made these charges, for I think he ought to have some regard to the reputation of the permanent officials, who endeavour to do their duty. They are unable to defend themselves against these charges. I feel unable to grant the inquiry for which the hon. Gentleman asks, but I invite him and his friends to be good enough to state the information they require, and I will undertake on my part to supply it if it is in my power.

The right hon. Gentleman is willing to give us something which we do not ask for, but will not give us what we do ask for. If he will not give us a sworn inquiry, will he give us one without the oath? If a mall cannot state the truth save upon oath I am not much disposed to believe him upon oath. We do not want anything unfair. We are actuated by no hostility; all we require is an inquiry into this exaggerated and enormous outlay; we wish to know where the responsibility lies. We ask—though it is going rather far—whether he will consider the matter with a view to its being settled before the end of the Session?

If there is any information to be obtained which I can put into a shape in which I can give it, all I can say is that I am ready to consider the means of getting it.

I have not made the charges of jobbery on my own authority, bat on the authority of gentlemen of the County of Fermanagh, who say that they are prepared to come forward to substantiate their charges against the Board of Works; and if the Board of Works care for their reputation for honesty they will not stand in the way of this inquiry.

(6.35.) The Committee divided—:Ayes 94; Noes 144.—(Div. List, No. 367.)

Original Question again proposed.

I wish to call attention to the way in which this Vote tends to increase each year, without conferring any increased benefit on the Irish people. For the year 1890–91 the amount is put down at £25,511, and anyone looking at the appropriation accounts will see that the Vote has been steadily on the increase. I should like to have some information as to the stores accounts, which have been reported on in a manner showing that something ought to be done in the matter. I hold in my hand the Report made by the Auditor General, and also that made by the Exchequer and Audit Department, which show that the general administration of Mr. Parker is very faulty and lax. In the Committee of Public Accounts on which I have had the honour to serve, the audit of the Public Works Office of Ireland raised a Debate year after year. In fact, a great portion of the forenoon was frequently spent in trying to rectify various points in connection with that office. It is stated in the Report I have before me that in 1888–9 the Board of Works undertook to have a more effective control over the stores under their charge, and that has not been done yet; and it is added that, with a view of ascertaining whether that undertaking had been carried out, the officers of the Auditor General's Department were ordered to visit certain store depôts in Ireland in order to inquire into the method of keeping the accounts. The result of that investigation was that the Kingstown Depôt alone showed any sign of an efficient control being kept over the stores; while in all the other stores the system had undergone no change. This is a Department which, it is said, does not stoop to jobbery, and yet in regard to this question of stores the officials do not seem to know what they have under their charge. The Report goes on to call the attention of the Board of Works to the failure at the depôts mentioned to adopt a complete plan of keeping the accounts at the depôt in a uniform manner. In the Report having reference to the Exchequer and Audit Department, it is stated that, while recognising with satisfaction the efforts made in the Kingstown Depôt towards instituting more effectual control over the stores, it was reported that no steps had apparently been taken to extend that system to the other depôts. It would consequently appear that on this question of stores the Department has, generally speaking, been very lax in the performance of its duties. I should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has to say on this subject.

The hon. Member has raised two questions, the first being that there is a tendency to increase this Vote year by year. The hon. Member is not strictly accurate in that statement, because I find that, as a matter of fact, the Vote is slightly less this year than it was last year. Moreover, the attention of the Board of Works has been given to the question the hon. Gentleman has raised in reference to the stores. I have no doubt he is correct in his allusion to the superior method of keeping the accounts adopted at Kingstown, and that is probably accounted for by the fact that that is one of the chief depôts in the country. I quite agree with the hon. Member that it is very desirable that the best system should be devised and adopted for the care of the stores.

It would appear that most of these young Inspectors employed by the Department are very unsatis- factory officers. I should like to know how they are appointed. Are they appointed by the Lord Lieutenant or the officials at Dublin Castle, and have they to pass an examination, or are the appointments open to the general public? Are they appointed because of their knowledge of the business they have to do, or is their appointment, in reality, part and parcel of a Dublin Castle job?

I believe they are appointed because of their special fitness for the work.

Do they pass any examination?

Yes; they pass an examination.

Is it a competitive examination?

I think not.

I should like to ask a question as to the appointment of local engineers, and whether anything has been done to cheapen the cost of inspection by the employment of local engineers instead of having them sent from Dublin? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I drew his attention to this matter last year.

Yes; the hon. and gallant Member did draw my attention to this matter last year, and I called the attention of the Chairman of the Board of Works to the subject. I asked him whether it would be possible to employ local engineers to a larger extent than hitherto, and he pointed out that there would be a difficulty in obtaining the requisite men in all cases in the immediate locality demanding inspection, but there appears to be no indisposition on the part of the Board to employ local engineers where it is advisable to take that course.

I have in my mind a case in which that course was not resorted to, although there was a local engineer of considerable standing within 15 or 20 miles of the spot.

I should like to ask how it comes to pass that there is such a considerable cutting down of travelling expenses under this Vote? I am distinctly pleased to see it, because, usually, this item in connection with Public Departments in Ireland reaches too high a figure. I should like, how- ever, to know how the reduction comes about.

The explanation is very simple, and, from some points of view, very satisfactory. The travelling expenses are less than they were last year in consequence of a less number of loans having been applied for, and a less number of inquiries and inspections having been necessary in consequence.

Question put, and agreed to.

2. £17,433, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Ireland.

I should like to have some figures from the Secretary to the Treasury as to how much is given for each of these registrations—births, marriages, and deaths—and I should like to know whether there is any difference in the method of registering Catholic marriages and Protestant marriages?

Yes, Sir. Last year the hon. and gallant Member drew attention to this matter, and I brought it under the notice of the Department subsequently. The question was, whether the imperfections in the registration of Catholic marriages were due to any financial inequalities of the payments to the Registrars, and I was informed that that was not the case. I am afraid that if there are any imperfections they can only be remedied by legislation. In the case of marriages celebrated by the Roman Catholic clergy the parties are required to have a certificate, and a fee of 6d. is paid to the Registrar before he enters the certificate on his register. In the case of marriages that occur amongst all other denominations, they are entered in register books supplied by the Registrar General, and the parties are required to forward particulars to the Registrars of marriages, who are required to forward Returns to the Registrar General's Office. No fee is attached to this duty.

Is there no salary attached to it?

I think not. In the case of Roman Catholic births and deaths the Roman Catholic clergy are usually the Registrars themselves, and Is. is paid for the entry of a birth or death under Section 54 of the 26th Vic. For each marriage registration 6d. is charged under Section 21 of the Act, and 3d. is charged for an entry on the vaccination register, where the Registrar is the dispensary medical officer. Where the Registrar is not the dispensary medical officer he is entitled to a fee of 2d. for his services.

I certainly think the fee ought to be raised. But is it not possible that the registrations are imperfect, owing to negligence on the part of the clerks? There are some marriages, I am told, that are not registered at all.

I speak without knowledge on the subject, but I gathered from the conversation that followed the discussion we had last year that there was some ground for believing that many marriages are not registered. It is the duty of the parties to send the Registrar notice, but there is no power to compel them to do so. There is no question about the accuracy of the Registrar, so far as he gets particulars, but he has no power to compel the parties to furnish him with particulars.

My point is that, owing to the extremely low fee paid, some of the notifications of marriages are not sent by the Registrar. If the same fee were given as is paid in the case of Protestant marriages, I believe that more care would be taken in the registration. I was informed by one gentleman to whom I spoke on the question that he believed there were a good number of marriages that were not registered, and he immediately dwelt on the extremely low fee. He said the fee for registration of marriages ought to be equal to that for the registration of births.

I should like to ask whether the amount put down here is the total amount for the taking of the Census, or whether the Constabulary also got a large amount in connection with gathering up the statistics? If the Constabulary got a fee, I should like to know what it amounted to.

I am afraid we have not yet received information showing the total cost of the Census.

Has the right hon. Gentleman not received an approximate estimate?

Of course, we made an estimate of the cost. The total cost we estimated at £22,000. The amount which will come in course of payment during the present financial year we estimated at £15,850.

Vote agreed to.

3. £12,809, to complete the sum for the Valuation and Boundary Survey, Ireland.

There are three or four counties of Ireland which have been surveyed, and of which large maps are being prepared. I should like to ask when we may expect these maps to be finished?

I am afraid I cannot give any definite information, but I may say we have increased the amount this year in order to make more rapid progress.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the maps or a portion of them will be published, say in a year's time?

Will the hon. and gallant Member specify the counties?

Galway, particularly.

I will inquire.

Vote agreed to.

Class I

4. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £155,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of Public Buildings in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, and for Drainage Works on the Rivers Shannon and Suck."

Earlier in the evening I stated that the officers of the Local Government Board are incompetent to initiate any proceedings or to execute any work, and I reiterate that upon this Vote. For the most laudable objects they refuse to do anything; or, if they do anything, they do it so badly that it would be better undone. At other times, for purposes not so laudable, they indulge in a most lavish expenditure. They cannot even make a correct estimate. For instance, in the case of barracks, their original estimate was £18,605, but there have been additions and alterations, for which £11,000 is taken. Again, the sanitary works were estimated at £2,000, but there have been additions and alterations costing £1,000, half as much again. For electric lighting they estimated £10,400; but additions and alterations have cost £4,808, and so it was throughout the Vote. Surely the engineers of the Board of Works ought to be able to estimate with some degree of accuracy. The Board of Works in Ireland rarely ever finish anything they take in hand, and I rose particularly to complain of the action of the Department in regard to the pier at Liscannor, in West Clare. Under the Relief of Distress Act, 1880, the Board of Works made some additions to the pier. It was thought they would make a harbour, but in reality they have only made a pond for ducks to swim in. They have made a complete muddle of the pier. There has been silting up, with the consequence that only vessels of very small tonnage can be loaded there. Messrs. Tuke & Maxwell, of Manchester, and Messrs. Hampson & Co., of Huddersfield, have opened up in the neighbourhood two very valuable flag quarries. These firms memorialised the Lord Lieutenant concerning the condition of the pier. They pointed out that if the harbour were completed, they would be able to ship 1,000 tons of flags a week, to employ 500 workmen, chiefly natives, and to pay between £30,000 and £40,000 annually in wages. It is only those who know the district who can appreciate what such a large sum in wages would mean to that district. The harbour resembles a dry dock more than anything else, and in the interest of my constituents and of the trade and commerce of the district, I ask the Government to finish the work they have begun. What is the use of a pier if there is no harbour? We ask the Government to complete the harbour so that an industry of importance to the district may be carried on with success. I also desire to direct attention to the condition of the Seafield Pier.

There is no provision in this Estimate for this pier, and it is not competent for the hon. Gentleman to enter upon the consideration of new works.

These are works which the Government have not finished. A contractor named Mahoney undertook to construct the pier, but failed to complete the work. The Government have not paid him for what he did. He claims £400. Last year they offered him £8, and now they offer him £38.

Such a question cannot be raised on this Vote.

I abstained from mentioning these things on another Vote; it seems I have lost my opportunity of raising them. Perhaps, however, I may be permitted to refer to other items. I see that £8,000 and £1,600 additional are taken for a "map store, with fittings," and £2,000 is set down for the "Clare Slob Lands, Road and Fence and other Works." £2,000 is a large sum to spend on such objects. I really do not see why the cost of these roads and fences should not be put on the county. Then £4,409 is to be voted for "Dublin Castle Residences and Chapel Royal." I do not see why you should put these together except on the old principle of Church and State. What do you want with a Chapel Royal at all? You have two magnificent cathedrals in Dublin, and I think the Lord Lieutenant or his household would be well enough served by one or other of them. £2,772 is asked for the "Maintenance and supplies" of the Viceregal Lodge, Gardens, &c. That must be a very comfortable residence when so much is required for its maintenance. The cost of the maintenance of the Chief Secretary's Lodge is estimated at £864, and that of the Under Secretary's Lodge, £416. £212 is required for the Geological Survey Office; but I would advise the abolition of the Office unless it is more efficiently conducted. Allowances are made for horses, but in one case I notice the allowance is £40 and in another only £20. A horse is a horse, and I should think the same amount of food ought to do one horse as another. There is an item for handy men. You have carpenters, glaziers, stonemasons, gardeners, and other artisans, and then you have handy men. What they do, except being handy in spending money, I do not know. You have an organ-blower, but I do not know where the organ is that he blows. There really ought to be more care exercised in the preparation of these extracts. Let me again point out that an estimate is made in the first place, and then large sums spent in alterations and additions.

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Estimates he will see one column relates to the total estimated cost of the works, and the other column to the amount it is proposed to spend during the year. There are no additions.

I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will not be panic struck at the mention of Ballycotton Pier, concerning which I want some information. It is about 12 months since we heard from the Government how the pier is getting on, but quite recently Mr. Wolff Barry made a most comprehensive report concerning the structure to the Board of Works. That gentleman made four recommendations. In the first place he recommended that the pier head should be strengthened, and that the readiest way of doing that was to surround it with stout galvanised iron. I believe that that has not been done. Secondly, Mr. Wolff Barry recommended that certain cavities in a certain number of the upper tier of blocks should be filled by bags of concrete. Of course, if the local Clerk of the Works had done his duty properly, and if the Board of Works had exercised proper supervision, these complaints would not be made. In the opinion of experts the work is one of the least discreditable of those for which the Board of Works are responsible, it is one of their best pieces of work on the South Coast. The right hon. Gentleman has himself seen the work, and he knows that I am speaking from plans and facts, and am not relying upon imagination. Large sums of money have been spent upon the work, and it would be lamentable if a public work of great utility should fail from defects of detail when they could be remedied at comparatively small cost. Mr. Wolff Barry called attention to the defective character of the "hearting"—filling up between the masonry. After heavy rains or storm from the south-east when the sea dashes over the pier, the water lodges in the depressions caused by subsidence. This is bad for the fishermen's nets, and bad for the stability of the structure itself. In the original specifications this was provided for by a fall outwards of 1 in 14. Another recommendation has reference to the depth of water outside the old pier, and this, I understand, has been attended to. I should be glad to know if the work is finished. I should be agreeably disappointed to learn that the Board of Works have dealt with the other points in Mr. Wolff Barry's Report. With every desire not to touch on the good humoured toleration of the right hon. Gentleman, so long as we have reason to suppose that any of these defects remain unremedied so long shall we have to press these matters upon his attention. Also, I should like to ask before we pass from the subject, if the Grand Jury have taken over the pier or not. With substantial grounds for their refusal the Grand Jury more than once declined to take over the pier and to be responsible for its maintenance. They alleged the work was incomplete. In this connection it should be borne in mind, as has been before observed, the Grand Jury is not a revolutionary body, and is unlikely to act in what I suppose the Chief Secretary would consider the spirit of "cussedness" animating a Nationalist representative body. The Grand Jury is composed of gentlemen of the landlord class and others not prone to act in opposition to a Government Department, so that the defect must have been serious when they refused to take over the pier. Then, on the other side of the bay, I may mention the boat slip at Knockadoon, in relation to which the Grand Jury have had a great deal of correspondence, some 75 feet of the concrete have been washed away, and this, as in the case of Ballycotton Pier, is due to the defective state of the "hearting" used by the contractor; indeed, I understand that instead of a specified class of stone or rubble being employed ordinary earth was used, with the result that the wash of the sea caused the blocks to fall in, with danger of the whole structure going to pieces. Then, some 12 months ago, we drew attention to the works at Greystones Harbour, and here I have no recent information, though recently I noticed a letter in a newspaper commenting on the neglect of the Board of Works. In the recent Report of the Board Greystones is mentioned as one of the works practically complete and about to be handed over to the Grand Jury. I know that much local dissatisfaction has been expressed at the way in which the Board of Works ignored local opinion in relation to the design and works, and, indeed, this is one of the cardinal and besetting sins of the Board exemplified all round the coast. At this Greystones Harbour, I believe, in the first instance, the work was undertaken by a contractor, Mr. Taylor, who worked away for a year upon plans universally condemned, when he failed, and Mr. Brown then took the contract and hammered away for another year. Greystones is favoured with deep water close in shore, and in the opinion of local experts what is required is the construction of a groyne on the north side to prevent the silt up of shingle from the heavy seas from the north-east, and the works on the south side are not required. But it would seem that the Board insist upon doing the very thing local experts declare should not be done.

I do not know if the hon. Member is aware of it, but the required work has been undertaken.

I am delighted to hear it. Passing from Greystones I desire to ask for a little information which perhaps the Chief Secretary would be better able to supply, in reference to the item "Repair and maintenance of constabulary barracks." This Vote covers what I do not hesitate to call so much jobbery that it is necessary to ask for information on many points. The amount asked for under the head of constabulary barracks is £4,360 as compared with £3,733 last year. In relation to this question of barracks I, some months ago, asked questions of the right hon. Gentleman as to the erection of new barracks at Teelin, and at the village of Taur, in my constituency. I was informed no such barracks were being constructed, but in this case, as in reference to other parts of Ireland, we have good reason to complain of the evasive and incorrect character of the information furnished from official sources to Ministers in this House. I was informed there were no such new barracks being constructed. My question was prompted in connection with the administration of the Coercion Act, and the commentary furnished on the result of the administration of that Act, the necessity for further barrack accommodation. I was told that no such new barracks were being constructed. But this was a mere quibble in reference to Teelin, for, as a matter of fact, a new building has been erected into which the contractor has removed, and his house has been converted into barracks. Then also at Taur I find, as a matter of fact, a new barrack has been constructed. For this misleading information the Board of Works are responsible; they must have known of these new works, and should have furnished the proper information.

I do not think the hon. Member is justified in assuming that. If he knows it it is another matter.

I assume it, I do not make the positive assertion, for I find some difficulty in determining under which head this expenditure is included. I now only ask for information, and do not move a reduction of the Vote.

I think there must be a little misunderstanding. The hon. Member apparently refers to the item, "Constabulary barracks throughout Ireland." That does not refer to new barracks, but to maintenance. Bally-cotton Pier is not quite a new subject. The hon. Member may rest assured that the structure is in no danger. Very careful measurements have been taken from time to time, and there is no cause to apprehend the smallest trouble. In the opinion of those competent to form an opinion, there is no movement, and all the work is good and substantial. The hon. Gentleman has asked whether the Grand Jury have taken over the pier. I have said already, on several occasions, that the pier has been handed over to the Grand Jury. The Board of Works after giving proper notice, have power to hand the pier over, and that power has been exercised.

To offer is one thing, to accept is another.

The Board of Works have given the proper notice, and the maintenance rests with the Grand Jury. I do not anticipate there will be any difficulty about the matter. It is a lasting piece of useful harbour work. The old foundations have been removed, and with satisfactory results. As to Knockadoon boat-slip, the full particulars are not in my mind just now, but if I remember rightly the question was raised on a previous occasion in some form. There was, I believe, some defect in the concrete; from some unexplained cause, the cement did not turn out as expected, but that, I understand, has been effectually remedied.

I am glad to have this information in reference to Ballycotton Pier. Of course, time alone can show if what is necessary has been done. In relation to the barrack buildings, I do not find the entry I want.

The only new buildings will be found on page 60, in the total amount of £11,200. I have no recollection of new buildings in the places mentioned by the hon. Member. Possibly it may be that the buildings are only rented.

I am informed that in the one case the contractor moved into a new building, and his house was then used as a barrack, and in Taur a new-building was erected.

In many cases the Grand Jury are adverse to taking over these piers, because they say they have been improperly constructed. I do not know whether the Board of Works at present have any power to see that when the works are handed over to the Grand Jury they are kept in proper order. In all matters affecting the sea, it may be said that a stitch in time often saves nine. I trust that where work has been satisfactorily done in the first instance, the Board of Works will see that it is properly preserved. I can understand in some cases the Grand Jury objecting to take over defective works; but, in the interest of the ratepayers as well as in the interest of the localities, the Board of Works would do well to see that the works which are taken over are properly maintained. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether the East Passage Pier, which is in my constituency, has yet been handed over to the Board of Works. Further, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to the Naval Reserve Station at the village of Tramore, in Waterford. When I was last there I saw no signs of work going on, and I should, therefore, like to know when it is likely to be set on foot. I must say that one of the most important things to render such a station efficient would be that you should have some sort of place where the men can launch a boat without danger to their lives. I have already called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this matter, and he has informed me that he can hold out no hope that a pier will be constructed at Tramore; but I would point out that Naval Reserve men have to go there for practice at certain periods of the year. I do not know how these men have been able to put out their targets owing to the want of a harbour. The surf runs so high there that on the majority of days during the winter season it is impossible for anyone to venture out in a boat with any degree of safety. I maintain that it is the duty of the Board of Works to keep up this pier. The people in the locality subscribed a large sum of money for the erection of the pier, the balance being given by the Board of Works. The construction of the pier was carried out by the Board of Works, but so defective were the plans and the works that the pier was swept bodily away, and the money spent on them has been literally thrown into the sea. The works have ceased to exist and are now at the bottom of the sea. I am anxious to know the exact site where the naval station is to be erected. Has the contract been entered into, who is the contractor, and at what date may we expect the works to be commenced? I think, sometimes, that the Board of Works might use a little discretion as to the time of the year when they commence their works. Very often they commence them at improper seasons. I also think that the time for drilling the men should be changed. The Naval Reserve in that district, as well as in others, should be brought for drill when employment is scarce, and when the men are least wanted for purposes of trade.

With regard to the East Passage Pier I believe it has been completed, and will soon be handed over. As to the Naval Reserve station at Tramore, I understand that a contract has been entered into for new work, but that work has not yet been commenced. It is not usual to commence work until the Vote has been taken. The hon. Member asks me if we will construct a pier at Tramore, and in reply I have simply to say that we have no money for the purpose. The pier was constructed 30 years ago, and I am afraid it was neglected and has suffered in consequence. But the question is entirely one for the locality, as we have no money at our disposal for such work.

I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman saw the condition of the place, and was acquainted with the conditions under which stores have to be landed there, he would see the absolute necessity of doing something. A tender comes round from Cork periodically and is obliged to land men and ammunition at Tramore. I have often seen men put off in a boat to take people to the ships, but return again unable to make a passage. In this Bay I suppose more wrecks take place than at any other part of the southern coast. We have a lifeboat there, but it is a very risky thing to launch it in bad weather. I have myself assisted in launching it, and have been considerably knocked about, whilst I have seen other men seriously injured.

I should like some information as to what are the "repairs and alterations" which are said to be made in the Ordnance Survey Office at Cork. £1,000 is taken for these repairs and alterations at Limerick and Cork, and I want to know the precise character of the alterations. I also want to know who is the contractor, and when the contract is to be completed? I see that at last we have got something done in connection with the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum. For the last two years the place has been tinkered with, and very little has been done. According to the medical reports, the sanitary condition of the establishment has been anything but satisfactory, therefore, I am glad to see that £1,000 is to be spent on it this year, the total estimate being £2,000. I should like to know whether it is proposed to complete all the works necessary to put the asylum on a satisfactory sanitary footing. It seems rather amusing to me to find that this year we are passing a Vote of £150 to enlarge the fern house at the Botanical Gardens, Dublin. We have hammered and hammered and hammered away at the Government for this Vote for years, and now we have got it. This shows that although we may appear rather tedious in making our demands, by our persistency we serve a very useful purpose, and act as a stimulant to Her Majesty's Government, who otherwise would not be able to get on at all with the works we wish to have carried out. Another thing I want to ask is, why, when contracts are given out in the South of Ireland, the condition is not laid down that the contractor shall employ local labour? When a contractor brings men into a district from a distance it creates great jealousy and impedes work. The landlords make application from time to time, and they are constantly granted, while we, who are not landlords, but simply the representatives of the people, make applications on behalf of our constituents, and find that in the words of the popular song, "It may be for years, and it may be for ever," that we have to await an answer. In reference to another subject, I see an item of £100 for work in connection with Cork College. As an old graduate of Queen's University, and having been connected with Queen's College, Cork, for many years, I must object to the system of tinkering and patching which is going on there, and is anything but satisfactory. It would be far better to make one complete job of the work, and I am quite sure that that would be a far more economical system. Passing to another point, I wish to ask a question on the subject of the Suck arterial drainage. The late lamented Member for Galway frequently raised this question, which is a very important one in connection with the locality to which it relates. It is a very poor locality, and few persons are aware of the distress and trouble undergone by the inhabitants almost daily and hourly. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some information as to the progress of the Suck drainage works. In regard to another matter—Ballycotton Pier—the Grand Jury took issue with the Government, and Mr. Wolff Barry was ordered to make a Report; but I ask, what is the use of getting Mr. Wolff Barry to make a Report if his suggestions are not to be carried out? It is all very well to say that there has been no subsidence at Ballycotton Pier; but it was found on sounding the pier at several points that the earth was being Washed away in consequence of a hollow which existed in the centre of the pier. If hon. Members would take the trouble to inspect the piers around our coast they would see that that coast is being studded with models of the incapacity of the officers of the Board of Works. I really hope that after the time expended in debating the subject of Ballycotton Pier, it will be patched up in such a way as to make it withstand the storms which visit our coast. I have spoken of Glendore, and I am afraid I cannot get much done in that case. I am not sure whether some of the fault is not attributable to the action of the Grand Jury; but if that be so, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to add his representations to my own remonstrance, so that the pier may be available during the fishing season. I now come to Castletown, where I think something ought to be done. The Royal Commission of 1886 recommended certain improvements to that harbour.

That subject does not come within this Vote.

I am aware of that; but I wish to be allowed to make a brief appeal on behalf of the inhabitants of Castletown, where there is a splendid deep-water channel running up a fine natural basin. The old pier there is practically useless, although the Royal Commission called attention to the subject in 1886, and although the Lighthouse Commissioners sanctioned the creation of a lighthouse there nothing has been done. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that something is done next year. I would also ask whether something cannot be done to render the pier at Lewisburg, in County Mayo, more useful? Although a great deal of money has been spent upon it it is practically useless at present. It is possible, however, to render it useful by a little further expenditure, and in that case it would be of the greatest benefit to the fishing population of that district. I would also ask the kind consideration of the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the large fishing population on the south side of the Island of Achill. It would be an enormous boon to the people of that district if something could be done to enable them to reap the rich harvest of the sea which is available on that part of the west coast. It would be far more to their advantage to improve their facilities for sea fishing than to spend large sums of money on the population of what is called a congested district. (8.45.)

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

^* (9.20.) : There are a few observations I think it right to make upon this Vote. In the first place, I notice there is a reduction in the expenditure upon the harbour of Howth, and in regard to this I would observe that this is a harbour of increasing importance. For many reasons it is being more frequented by fishermen, and more and more is it becoming a place of resort for packets and visitors. I therefore hope there is no intention to effect a saving here, with any risk to the efficiency of the harbour. It is not many years since there was good reason to complain that the condition of the harbour was not such as it should be, and I hope that this reduction will not tend to any neglect of the harbour, for that would be a penny wise and pound foolish policy. Next I would refer to what I must call some unprofitable expenditure in connection with the new and handsome Science and Art Buildings at Dublin, of which the city may be proud, but I notice in the Estimates an item of £500 for a screen and gateway. Now, this is a most unfortunate addition to the building, this gateway in Molesworth Street. It is difficult to understand how the architect of such really beautiful buildings could dwarf and spoil the effect by such an addition. I would certainly rather vote the money to have it removed. Then there is an amount of £8,000 for the map store and fittings in connection with the Ordnance Survey Office. I would strongly urge the rapid completion of this work, for at present, if any particular map is required, the delay is excessive and most vexatious. I hope with the completion of the arrangements we shall have a better system, and that it will not be necessary that all maps should be procured from one agent in Dublin. I would desire to call attention to the item of £336, less the rest of rent of a house for the Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare. If such a sum is necessary for the Deputy Ranger, one feels some curiosity to learn what the payment to the Ranger is. What Vote that comes under I do not know. The Curragh of Kildare is common land; it does not require the care given to the Phoenix Park, and yet the bailiff of Phœnix Park receives a smaller salary. Altogether the supervision of the Curragh of Kildare appears to be a costly arrangement, for there are, in addition to above charge, six bailiffs receiving from. 12s. to 21s. per week each. These are all the remarks I have to make with reference to this Vote.

There will be no neglect of Howth Harbour. The entrance has been dredged, and I think there is now no cause for complaint. As to the Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare, I must confess the details have not come to my knowledge. As to the increase in the Vote for Ordnance Survey, that is due to the necessity for providing for the accommodation of the larger staff now engaged in the Ordnance Survey in Ireland. With reference to the expenditure at Dundrum Asylum, the £1,000 this year is part of the £2,000 estimated for improving the.sanitary condition of the buildings. [The remainder of this speech was inaudible in the Gallery.]

I notice that the amounts put down for the repair and maintenance of the harbours of Donaghadee and Ardglass are rather smaller than those put down in previous years. So far as I have been able to judge, there is need for even larger expenditure upon Ardglass Harbour than has been hitherto made, if the harbour is to be maintained in any sort of efficiency. A railway is now being made between Ardglass and Downpatrick, and it is very desirable there should be ample harbour accommodation in connection with the railway. A great deal more money has been spent on the Ardglass Harbour than the harbour is worth; but, apart from that question, it is well that such a sum should be spent as will keep it in proper repair. There is one other point on which I should like information from the Secretary to the Treasury. I am anxious to know whether the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Buxton), and accepted by the House, as to all Government contractors being required to make a declaration that they pay the standard rate of wages, is to be applied to Ireland, and, if so, in what way? There may be some difficulty in applying that rule to Ireland, where the standard rate of wages is lower than that in London; but I think something should be done in the direction of requiring the declaration referred to in the case of Irish contracts. It is an undoubted fact that many contracts in Ireland are taken much too cheaply, with the result that the cheapest labour is employed.

As to Donaghadee Harbour, I agree something ought to be done. There has been some silting up, but I do not know that there has been any great inconvenience, as there is not much traffic there. There was a difference of opinion as to the work necessary, and it seemed to us very undesirable we should begin to do anything unless it was going to be accepted as satisfactory. As to Ardglass, when I was there I was told that the one thing necessary was a railway. Now, the hon. Gentleman says it is absolutely necessary we should enlarge the harbour. I am aware of the condition of the harbour, and probably some day it may be necessary to do something. I believe there are one or two other places which have a prior claim. I am not possessed of information as to the application of the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Poplar to Ireland, but I will make inquiries. I do not know that we have gone so far as to set up any particular standard, but it would not be unreasonable that we should take the same course in Ireland, as far as the circumstances are similar, as we take in England.

I was glad to hear what fell from the right hon. Gentleman on the question on contracts. The Secretary to the Treasury will recollect that the Resolution accepted by the House was not intended by any means to be confined to England, but was to extend to all public contracts in whatever part of the Kingdom they may be made. There may be some difficulty in certain cases in discovering what is actually the standard rate of wages, but at all events—

The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that "standard" was not the word used, but "current."

Yes, "current." It may be somewhat difficult to discover that, in places where Trades. Unions are not strong, and where current rates are not fully recognised; but, at the same time, I think the Board of Works should be held as responsible for carrying out the Resolution in Ireland as the Department is in England. When any contract is given out we should know what wages are going to be paid.

As to general contracts, there is no specified rate of wages. The question of wages only arises in the case of particular contracts, such as those for buildings.

In the case of maintenance and repairs, for instance, labour will form the principal part of the contract. I trust it will be quite as possible to carry out the object of my Resolution in Ireland as it is in England.

The right hon. Gentleman met the matter in a very conciliatory way, but I should like to have something more. In some parts of Ireland it may be difficult to discover what is the current rate of wages, but there are other parts of the country in which it is quite as easy to discover that as it is in England. In Belfast, Dublin, and Cork—especially Belfast—labour is quite as well organised as it is in any part of England—in some trades, at any rate. A new constulary barracks is to be built in Belfast. That will be built by contract, and one of the main items will be labour. I think that just as the quality of the bricks used is specified in the contract the rate of wages paid should be specified, so that in the course of the work the Government can receive penalties from the contractors if they find labour is being paid worse than it is usually paid.

I confess it is difficult, owing to the form of the estimate, to arrive at any definite conclusion as to what is being done; but, at all events, I am convinced that a great deal of money is uselessly spent. £4,409 is asked for the Dublin Castle Residences and the Chapel Royal, as against £3,855 taken last year. I cannot make out why more money is required this year than last. But, in any case, the Chapel Royal is of very little use. Occasionally you have a fashionable service there; but as an Irish Protestant, I think the Chapel might be done away with. I also think too much money is spent on Dublin Castle itself. I could well understand large sums of money being voted in Committee of Supply for the maintenance of Dublin Castle when it was used as an examining establishment for the Queen's Universities, and subsequently for the Royal University; but now you have got new Royal University buildings, and there is no longer any necessity for Dublin Castle to be used as an examining institution. £3,856 is asked for the Viceregal Lodge and Gardens, as against £3,889 last year. I cannot understand how it comes to pass that there it less money spent on the place occupied by the Lord Lieutenant than upon Dublin Castle, a place very seldom used. The Chief Secretary does not very often favour our green island with his presence, but, all the same, his residence has to be kept up, and for the Chief Secretary's Lodge and Gardens, &c., we are called upon to provide £864. The utensils at the lodge seem to wear out very quickly, because for utensils and fittings and furniture we are asked for £217. We cannot object to cleaning, but £120 seems a very excessive amount for such a purpose. In all, £1,201 is asked for the right hon. Gentleman's lodge, as against £1,245 last year. The Chief Secretary was hardly ever in Ireland last year. It is true there was a little golfing, and the right hon. Gentleman paid one or two visits in connection with that game and also in connection with the administration of the Coercion Act. This year, however, he has been more frequently in Ireland, and yet I find a less sum is asked for the maintenance of his lodge. I want some explanation respecting this expenditure, and unless I receive it and consider it satisfactory I shall feel obliged to move to reduce the Vote by £500—I will allow £364. I also wish to receive some information respecting the preservation of ancient monuments. £250 is asked for in regard to ancient monuments, and I am anxious to know to whom the money goes. I also want to know what is being done to preserve the splendid national monuments at Achonry, which are rapidly decaying? Only the other day questions were asked concerning the preservation of the monuments of Egypt. Charity begins at home, and I and my colleagues, who come from a country that is full of historical relics, wish to have our relics preserved for the benefit of those who delight in the investigation of antiquarian monuments. I also wish to know what is being done in regard to the interesting monuments at Clonmacnois on the Shannon and the round tower at Clones. Another point I have to raise relates to the stupid gate that has been put up at the entrance to the Science and Art Buildings in Dublin. You have erected very fine buildings, but the gate makes them look ridiculous. The sooner you clear it away and erect something in keeping with the immediate surroundings the better. We are pretty fair judges of what ought to be done; and if it is not done, why, we shall hammer away until we remove the obstruction.

I shall have great pleasure in supporting the hon. Member if he does move a reduction of the Vote by £500. I have often complained of the money spent upon this residence in Dublin, although I have seldom had the support of hon. Members for Ireland, for they seem to think it is an advantage to get all the Saxon money they can for Ireland. It would be wiser, I think, if they were to consider these matters in a broader view, whether the money is wasted or profitably spent, and if they joined us in our protest against all wasteful expenditure. It must be admitted, I think, that this expenditure is excessive. For the maintenance, furniture, and utensils of this building the cost is £10,400 a year; and all this is to lodge five gentlemen, one of whom is certainly for the greater part of the year elsewhere, and does not, I suppose, spend more than 30 days out of the year in Ireland. The Viceregal Lodge is not far from Dublin Castle, and it is an absurdity to have two buildings maintained not more than two miles apart at this large expenditure. I can guarantee the hon. Member that he will not get a satisfactory answer, and I hope he will carry out his intention to move a reduction of the Vote. If he does divide I shall certainly vote with him.

I press for an answer to the questions I have raised, and for assurance in respect to the Chief Secretary's Lodge. The lodge is seldom occupied, and I ask how it comes to pass that a larger sum is expended upon it than upon either of the Queen's Colleges. How does it come to pass that so much more money is required for Dublin Castle this year than last year? To emphasise my questions I move a reduction of the Vote by £500 under Subhead C.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C, Maintenance of the Chief Secretary's Lodge, &c., be reduced by £500."—( Dr. Tanner. )

The hon. Member can hardly think it is possible to maintain these important buildings for precisely the same amount every year. The reason why a larger amount is charged for Dublin Castle this year than last year is that a system of alterations and repairs has been going on for several years, and this year it will be finished. As to the Chief Secretary's Lodge, when I was in Dublin I went most carefully into the expenditure, and I am bound to say that, as far as I am able to judge, it is not possible to reduce the amount. Whether or not the house should be kept up is a matter of policy, while we do keep it up, it is economical to maintain it in repair.

So far as I can understand, this is Imperial money wasted. It does seem to me sometimes that Irish Members are quite satisfied so long as public money is spent in Ireland, but I look upon this as a matter of principle; it is our duty to prevent the waste of public money. I could understand the expenditure if it were the habit and policy of the right hon. Gentleman to reside for a certain part of the year in Ireland. No such charge as this arises in relation to the government of Scotland, and I believe the government of Scotland is more satisfactorily administered. I hope a Division will be taken as a protest against the expenditure. There is no excuse or explanation for it, and our duty to the taxpayers requires we should do what we can to wipe away this expenditure.

I support the protest for the reason that all these items in the Estimates are charged in the accounts as against Ire- land. Although it may seem strange for an Irish Member to object to the expenditure of Government money in Ireland, yet, when we reflect, we find there is no guarantee that the money is spent to the advantage of Ireland or that we get the value of it. We shall in a short time, if the Government adhere to their pledge, have an inquiry into the financial relations between the three Kingdoms, and in the general reckoning Ireland will be debited with these items as payments from the Imperial Treasury, and it is our duty as economists and Irish Members to keep these items down to a reasonable amount. The Secretary to the Treasury does not understand the items, and I am sure the Chief Secretary could not explain the meaning of £270 odd for utensils. A lump sum, once for all, for furnishing the lodge we could understand; but year after year these amounts are paid, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is systematic jobbery, and we may be quite sure that a considerable part of the money percolates into the pockets of people who do not appear in the matter. In my opinion, a large amount of the money voted under these heads for expenses of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary is jobbed away in a highly respectable manner, and nobody connected with the Board of Works knows exactly how. The system is handed down from Government to Government, and nobody is sufficiently interested in economy to check it. In view of the inquiry into the financial relations between England and Ireland, I desire to see such wasteful expenditure cut down that it may not help to swell the amount set down to our debit, and for which we do not get value.

It might save much discussion and many Divisions if, in addition to the Estimates, Papers were prepared for the use of Members showing the miscellaneous items that go to make up these amounts. I am sure it would materially assist our deliberations in Committee of Supply.

(10.15.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 62; Noes 96.—(Div. List, No. 368.)

Original Question again proposed.

To enable us to arrive at the total of the effective charge for Constabulary would it not be well that the accounts should be so kept that we should see the total charge without a long examination of the various heads? Barrack accommodation, for instance, is charged under the Vote for the Board of Works, and other charges are to be found under the head of public buildings. When we are dealing with the Constabulary Vote would it not be well to have a memorandum showing the items on constabulary account under other Votes, that we may know what the total effective charge is?

If the hon. and learned Member will refer he will see that on the face of the Estimate, Class 3, the information is given.

Question put, and agreed to.

(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £328,529, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for Payments under 'The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883,' and 'The Light Railways(Ireland) Act, 1889.'"

Last year the Secretary to the Treasury made a very interesting and lucid statement in regard to the Light Railways Act, and we shall be grateful if he will give us a little further enlightenment now.

The hon. Member's request for a statement rather puts me in a difficulty, because I had expected to have to answer questions. I think I may say generally that pretty good progress has been effected, and, with the exception of two lines, satisfactory arrangements have been made with regard to the construction, maintenance, and working of the lines. I have had Reports from time to time of the progress of the works, and I believe they are all well under weigh now; and it may be reasonably expected that by the end of next year most of the railways will be, if not completed, nearly completed. That will be a satisfactory statement to the Committee, because, as everybody is aware, the work had to be started in a hurry under pressure and to some extent under great difficulties. The object was to meet an emergency, or rather to prevent an emergency arising. Therefore, works were pushed on under provisional contracts so as to give employment. A very large amount of employment has been given. A record has been kept of the number of men employed each week, and for the weeks beginning with the 4th of April and ending with the 4th of July the average numbers of men employed in each of the weeks were as follows:—5,505, 6,056, 5,845, 5,935, 5,339, 5,453, 6,664, 6,085, 6,720, 7,175, 7,395, 7,710, 7,967, and 7,624. These figures show that energy has been put into the work, and that care has been taken to obtain information of all that is being done every week. I believe I am entitled to say that great progress has been made. The engineer writes to me that, on the whole, about 100 miles of line have been brought to the formation level ready for ballasting. He also says that one-third of the rock-work is completed, and 5 per cent. of the brickwork and masonry. And then he goes into detail as to the various lines. I think the Committee may take it from me that, so far, no unforeseen difficulties have arisen. Contractors, Railway Companies, and all concerned have worked cordially to make the undertakings successful.

I think the right hon. Gentleman may, on the whole, be congratulated on the manner in which the works have been carried out. I feel some uneasiness that I do not like to give expression to as to the Clifden line. And, then, there is a matter upon which I had expected some information. Some explanation may perhaps be given by the Government of the fact that they are proceeding with some lines for which Parliamentary powers have not been obtained. Of course, buying land without Parliamentary powers must always be more or less an expensive operation, and I should like to know from the Government whether they can state what are the lines in regard to which they have proceeded without Parliamentary powers, and whether there is any necessity for applying to Parliament to sanction what they have done. I am glad to see that in consequence of the struggle we had last year, the Government have determined to remit the entire claim they were going to make in Galway—some £40,000. As to Donegal, the Chief Secretary has been there, I understand, and pledged himself to the starting of a particular line beyond those sanctioned by Parliament. Donegal is one of the districts where pressure has been most felt, and the poverty has exceeded anything to be seen, even in Connemara. Strong representations have been made by the Bishop and clergy of that county to the right hon. Gentleman—and, of course, it is for such persons to ask for protection for their people. They have put forward strong complaints as to the action of the Government. I do not myself agree that particular districts have been favoured; but, at any rate, it is not desirable that the suggestion should be allowed to remain unanswered, and that it should be said that because the Chief Secretary went into a certain district something was done for that district, but that nothing was done for those districts which he did not visit. At any rate, the railway which was needed in Donegal has not been forthcoming. I will not comment upon the action of the Government in handing over the control of these light railways to the Great Irish Railway Companies. I will only say that I hope the system they have adopted will turn out well, and that I am pleased to see that they seem to be getting on so satisfactorily.

Is it intended that the Mulranny line shall be extended to Achill Sound?

It is a fact that the Mulranny line is to be extended to Achill Sound. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite says we have undertaken the construction of railways without Parliamentary powers—that is to say, independently of the Act of last year. It is perfectly true that the Government have undertaken some works on their own responsibility and without the necessary powers—the railways to Achill Sound and the Culloney and Claremorris Railway—but the rest of the lines have been carried through entirely in accordance with the legislation the Government were able to carry at the close of last Session. The hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded to the proposed railways in the north of Donegal. We had Debates in the House on that subject at a time when the hon. and learned Member was not able to be present, and I would only point out to him that he is not correct in saying that when in Donegal I promised an additional line; but what I said was that the Donegal system would not be complete until in addition to the railways we had constructed in the south of the county and in the middle to Glenties, there was a line in the north topping the district bordering on the north coast. But I have always found it necessary to add that as we have not only employed all the money at our disposal but have exceeded the amount by £100,000, it is not possible to complete the system now; and, indeed, Donegal has already received its full share of the £600,000 or £700,000 voted last year, and to give it £200,000 or £300,000 more would not be fair to the other counties.

Do you need further Parliamentary powers?

As far as the Government are able to determine, it will not be necessary to ask Parliament for further powers, but it will be asked to vote the money required to complete the lines undertaken without Parliamentary sanction. I do not wish to go into the general question of allowing the great Railway Companies to become the proprietors or managers of the branch lines; but, unless this had been done, much greater liabilities would have been thrown upon the counties. There are objections to giving the Railway Companies the management of the branch lines; but, on the whole, considering the burden which would otherwise have been imposed on the districts, and considering also that it is alleged that companies sometimes attempt to starve or squeeze out branches which do not belong to them, I think that the Government have been well advised in taking the great companies into their confidence from the beginning, and asking them to co-operate in the carrying through of this great work.

As to the two lines constructed without Parliamentary powers, is it intended to hand them over to the Midland Great Western Railway Company? I have every sympathy with the action of the Government, and recognising their difficulties, I have not blamed them for what they have done. It is an experiment that has to be tested by results; but as to the Culloney and Claremorris Railway and the Mulranny and Achill Sound Railway, I should like to ask whether it is also intended to hand those over? If it would be against the public interest for the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question I will not press it.

What is the state of things as to the Culloney and Claremorris Railway. Is it to be handed over?

No decision has as yet been arrived at. The works are progressing and negotiations are going on, but I cannot at present make any statement with regard to them.

As a matter of general policy, I should think it better for these branch railways to be worked by large companies than by small ones. They are better kept and maintained. As to the squeezing of these branch lines, I have seen an example of it in my own neighbourhood. Now, this railway question divides itself into two parts, one including those railways for which the baronies have to pay, and the other including railways constructed out of money advanced by the Government. Take the case of the Schull and Skibbereen Railway, which the Board of Trade was supposed to have inspected very thoroughly before handing it over to the barony. There is an estimated proportion of 2 per cent, or £1,140, to be paid. The railway was handed over in a very bad condition.

This point is not relevant to the Vote.

Then I will not refer to the neglected condition of the line when handed over to the Railway Company. I think there has been jobbery in connection with the Tralee and Dingle Line, and I trust the Government will keep an efficient eye on the matter.

I wish to draw attention to the Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon Railway. The shareholders in that company receive 5 per cent., though they do not make a profit and never hope to. The loss on the working expenses and also the interest on the capital are paid by a grant from the locality as a first charge on the rates. The Directors, therefore, have no interest whatever in keeping the expenses down, neither have the shareholders.