This

interest in the development of the indus- | is so, because I should have liked to hear trial resources of Ireland. I had the some of them express their opinions pleasure of working with him on the upon this matter-I should have liked Piers and Harbours Commission, and to have heard some of those who went am in a position to say that the interest the other day with an ex parte statement he took in that matter and the ability he to the Secretary to the Treasury. And displayed have greatly benefited the here I would protest as strongly as I fishermen of Ireland. This Bill which can against this system of private ear the Secretary to the Treasury wishes to wigging. Any representations that introduce to-night will largely develop have to be made to the Government on the industrial resources of Ulster, and I subjects of this kind should be made therefore trust that it will not be op- here-any pressure which it is thought posed by those hon. Members who really desirable to put upon them should be desire to develop the industrial resources attempted on the floor of this House. of the country. I regret that I am The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the almost alone here to-night on this side Treasury has made no defence at all for of the House; but it was not expected this Bill; or, if at all, one of a very weak that opposition would be offered to the nature. What he says is, that the meafirst reading of the Bill. If it had been sure is one that has often been before known that this opposition was to be the House, and which has often been offered, hon. Gentlemen who are in- opposed, and opposed successfully. No terested in the development of the in- doubt, he thinks it only right that he dustrial resources of Ulster would have should have an opportunity of trying his taken care to attend in order to say skill to effect that which his Predecessomething about it. I trust the House sors have hitherto failed to do. will listen to the views of the Secretary may be all very well from his point of to the Treasury, and that the Bill will be view; but to my mind it is a serious read a first time now. I beg hon. Gen- waste of the time of this House. It tlemen below the Gangway not to throw seems to me that no more effective sysobstacles in the way of developing the tem for wasting time could be devised resources of Ireland; and I assure them than that of persisting, Session after that this measure happens to be one Session, in the introduction of a Bill which will largely develop the resources which is thoroughly indefensible. But, of the Province of Ulster, which they as I have said, the hon. Member has not say they would like to see at one with offered a word in favour of his measure. the rest of Ireland. In opposition to the Bill we have heard MR. BIGGAR: The hon. Member the hon. and gallant Gentleman the for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) has Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), spoken about developing the industrial who was a Member of the Royal Comresources of the Province of Ulster. mission which investigated the facts, in Well, I should like to point out to the connection with this project, on the spot, House the extent to which the Province and which saw that the proposal was of Ulster is benefited by the Canal he untenable. We are told that this Canal wishes to hand over to this Navigation is one of those links in the chain of Company, at a cost of £3,000 to the water communication which is to lead State. At present the Canal has an in- from the North of Ireland to the come, derived, I believe, from coals, of Shannon; but it is a useless link, like something less than £50 a-year, whilst that one lower down, upon which a the cost of putting it in something like former Government spent £200,000. decent order and looking after it amounts The link to which I refer, for which a to something over £1,000 a-year. If former Government were reponsible, that is the way in which the industrial was so utterly useless that no boat could resources of the Province of Ulster are navigate it; it was so stupidly conto be developed, I think the sooner the structed that no Canal boats could go development of the industrial resources below the bridges without being rebuilt. of the Province of Ulster is given up the That is an example of the way in which better. The hon. Member says he is the Board of Works in Ireland carries very sorry that he is the only Tory on its business. There is no doubt that Member from Ulster present at this some few people-some few resident in moment. I also am very sorry that that the locality of the Canal-may be more

Mr. Johnston

In point of fact, it will undertake anything; but to get it to fulfil its undertakings is a very difficult matter. I think that, unless the Government is able to offer very much stronger reasons than they have done yet why this Bill should pass, it is right that the House should insist upon a postponement to allow of further consideration.

MR. T. M. HEALY: On behalf of my constituents in South Derry, who have_great_interest in the drainage of the Bann, I wish to offer this Bill my strongest opposition. We often hear it said that the Irish people regard the English Exchequer as a cow from which they are continually drawing. But I wish to point out to hon. Gentlemen representing English constituencies that what we are doing in this case is to

or less satisfied with this Bill, and pro- | undertake. bably a coal dealer or two, non-resident in the locality, will be benefited by it; but I would point out that the whole district, through which the Canal runs, is at the present moment uncommonly supplied with railway accommodation. The railways do not charge a higher rate for the carriage of produce along their route in the absence of competition than they would do if the Canal competed for the traffic. We have no reason to suppose that the railways would raise their rates a single 1d. if the Canal were done away with. Whilst, therefore, there are no advantages to be gained by the passing of this Bill, I would point out that it may have a very mischievous effect, because it would render it impossible for all time to come to lower the level of Lough Neagh. Even at the pre-oppose the absolute throwing away of sent moment people living on the banks of Lough Neagh periodically suffer injury from floods. There is another objection to Bills of this sort; there are no Local Authorities in Ireland who are competent to superintend their operation. I think it is fatal to any Bill of this kind if there is no Representative Body by whom it can be carried out. It is all very well for irresponsible people, who, in some cases, know nothing of the facts of the case, to promote such Bills as this. I know that several of the hon. Members from the North of Ireland have no local knowledge whatever, and that, in point of fact, they know nothing of the merits of this case. I maintain that until we get a Local Representative Body in the North of Ireland, who can represent the ratepayers fairly and honestly, no Bill dealing with questions of taxation for drainage and other matters of that sort should be allowed to pass. I trust my hon. Friends will divide with me against the Bill even at its present stage; and I think that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House, who are in favour of economy, will see it would be very much better to sell the land of the Canal for the £5,000 which it would bring than to expend any more money upon it. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) told us that this Canal Company had entered into a certain undertaking. It is no use to talk about the Company entering into undertakings. We know what a shady public Company will

£3,000 of the taxpayers' money into the waters of the Ulster Canal. Now, the most astonishing thing to me is that some of the Members of the Opposition who approached the Treasury, in the form of a deputation, on Friday last, should have the hardihood to put forward some of the statements they did. The hon. Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry) had the superb audacity to say that our opposition to the development of this Canal was due to our having an interest in Railway Companies in Ireland. Any argument, of course, against a Parnellite Member is good enough. At one time we are represented as being in a state of the most wretched and depressed poverty, and at another time we are represented as having such great interests in Railway Companies that we are opposed to Canals. I am surprised the hon. Baronet (Sir James Corry)-because he was made a Baronet by the late Tory Government for value received-is not here to-night, in order to defend the unjust attack he made upon Gentlemen below the Gangway for their action in connection with this Canal. I will read, for the instruction of English Members, one statement made by a member of the deputation to the Secretary to the Treasury. Hon. Gentlemen will then understand the value of this Canal to Ireland. The Canal is now making a total of £50 per annum; what chance, therefore, is there of the Company ever repaying the £3,000 proposed to be advanced by the State? The secretary to the Canal Com

"There were 26 locks on the Canal, and it would take £10,000 to put the Canal in working order."

£10,000 to begin with! At £50 a-year the House can imagine how many years it would take to make up £10,000.

pany-and I take this from the report | down to the sea. You keep, by means in The Belfast News Letter, which was of these useless locks, Lough Neagh to sent by a special reporter and across a a level three or four feet higher than special wire-saidwas ever intended; but the worst of all is that when you appointed a Government Commission to inquire into the whole subject-a Commission consisting, as it did, of the late Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. Dickson), the hon. and gallant Gentleman who, in the last Parliament, represented County Dublin, but who now sits for the Isle of Thanet Division of Kent (Colonel KingHarman), and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), and that Commission condemns the thing root and branch— which has also been done by many men of independent character-the Government still comes forward and proposes to cast the money of the ratepayers into the foetid waters of the Ulster Canal. On behalf of my constituents, who are deeply interested in the drainage of Lough Neagh, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in his opposition to this Bill. I think it is a monstrous thing that gentlemen should be allowed to come over from Ireland and pretend to the Treasury that they are entitled to borrow £3,000, when they admit that to do properly what is suggested an expenditure of £10,000 is necessary. For them to say they can ever pay the interest on the borrowed money is a sham and a delusion, and if my hon. Friend goes to a division I shall certainly support him.

"Two proposals had been made for raising this sum. The first was that the Government should lend it to the Navigation Company;" -that was a most cynical and delightful attempt to offer adequate security for the repayment of loan and interest-"And the second proposal was that £3,000 should be given by the Government, the Company being left to borrow the other £7,000. The hon. Gentleman's Predecessors were prepared to accede to the latter proposal." The first proposal was that £10,000 should be expended, and when that would not wash the Company were content with £3,000. Yes; I venture to say they would have been satisfied with £2,000, or £1,000, or £500, or anything they could squeeze out of the Government. I will not say they wanted to share it amongst themselves; but, no doubt, they wished to make the pretence they were going to do something with these 26 locks, and then become bankrupt in the face of the public. The whole question of the Canalization of Ireland is a very difficult one. In my judgment, the number of Canals in Ireland is much too large. On this Lower Bann you are at present_taxing the farming population of Ireland £15,000 a-year for the maintenance of these navigation locks, some of which locks were so objectionable to the peaceable population generally-to the nonCatholic population along the banks that they blew them out with dynamite. The people argued that not a single boat passed along the Canal but hundreds and thousands of acres of their land were being flooded. What a farce it is to pretend to go on with navigation when you have nothing to navigate. There are railways on each side of the Canal to take all the traffic the districts produce. There is no boat upon the Canal, and yet you tax the people thousands of pounds to make useless works for the purpose of navigation, instead of letting the rivers do what God intended, and that is to drain the land of Ireland

Mr. T. M. Healy

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: This is a matter which a number of us now sitting on these Benches have persistently fought against a series of Financial Secretaries to the Treasury, and I know for a fact that one of the Predecessors of the present Secretary to the Treasury, in his own mind, did not approve of the Bill which his official position compelled him to support in the House. I put it to Members opposite, who have manifested a much greater desire than I have ever witnessed before to give effect to the wishes of the Representatives of Ireland, that this is a matter in which we have reached practical unnanimity, and that in no assembly in Dublin would such a project as this have the least chance of success. If carried at all, the Bill will be carried against the unanimous wish of the Representatives of Ireland. It is supported by a very

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): I assure my hou. Friends that I have no wish to force on this Bill against the opposition of the Irish Members. Of course, there is to this, as to every question, two sides, and I should like the House to hear the other side. I may add that the Treasury are to be relieved from £1,100 a-year, and that is, perhaps, the bait held out to us. But I am quite willing to assent to the adjournment of the debate, on condition that ample Notice be given of its resumption in order that all Members from Ireland may have an opportunity of expressing their views upon the Bill. Motion agreed to.

small number of men, who do not appear | Fowler) recognizes the evident sense of to have really studied the case in all its the majority of the House; but perhaps bearings, and therefore cannot be alive he would prefer to have time to consider to the very serious and joblike cha- his position. He may possibly be preracter of the measure proposed. I do pared to assent to the Motion to adjourn not wish to quote extensively from Re- the present debate. If it meets with his ports of the Commissioners appointed to view of the present situation, I will move examine this question; but I venture to that this debate be now adjourned. call attention to the fact that so far back as 1861 Sir John Maclean, who was certainly very unbiassed, reported that the only plan he could suggest by which the-(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.) Canal could be made useful was to take off the lock gates, drain the Canal, and convert its bed into grass land which might be let for grazing; that gentleman adding that the banks and waste land, which in many places were of considerable width, might be let for tillage. Later Commissioners had reported against any further expenditure of money-they showed it was perfectly useless; and they also showed that the loss of money taken at the lowest rate of interest charged by the Treasury for any advances of this kind must amount annually to over £6,000. Now we are asked to make a drain on the Treasury of a very considerable amount, and to hand that sum over to a Company which undertakes to do something. What that something is is not very clear; but the inevitable result will be that in a short time the Treasury, as mortgagees, will be obliged to foreclose because they will not be able to receive either their interest or principal, and then they will be in precisely the same position as now, with a worthless security on their hands, and have to come to the House with another Bill in order to induce some other Company to take it up. And so the game will go on. Public money will be wasted, and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy) has said, injury will to be done to the agricultural land in the neighbourhood. They have done the same thing here as in many other parts of Ireland; they have dammed up the watercourses and prevented the watercourses doing what they ought to donamely, carry off the surplus water to the sea. I have, myself, seen tens of thousands of acres in one stretch under water, which, if these rivers were only allowed to do what they were intended and made to do, might never have been flooded at all. I do not know whether the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H.

Debate adjourned till Monday next.

POST

OFFICE

SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH CONTRACT (ST. VINCENT TO THE WEST COAST OF AFRICA).

RESOLUTION.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREA

SURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER) moved

"That the Contract, dated the 19th day of January 1886, for the construction of a Submarine Telegraph Line from the Island of St. Vincent to the West Coast of Africa be approved."

MR. HENNIKER-HEATON objected the Motion being taken at that hour of the night.

that this should be taken to-night; but MR. H. H. FOWLER: It was arranged I have no wish to press it at this late hour if any objection is raised. I therefore propose to postpone it till to

morrow.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

SHOP HOURS REGULATION BILL.
Select Committee on Shop Hours Regulation
Bill nominated of,-Mr. BARRY, Mr. BROAD-
HURST, Sir JAMES FERGUSON, Mr. THEODORE
FRY, Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Mr. FRANCIS POWELL,

Mr. THOROLD ROGERS, and Mr. STUART | he has gained more experience of the WORTLEY:-Three to be the quorum.-(Sir working of the remaining existing comJohn Lubbock.)