§ MR. P. J. O'BRIEN (Tipperary, N.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Town Commissioners of Nouagh, County Tipperary, having resolved to build a Town Hall, took, in the year 1884, the necessary steps under "The Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Amendment Act, 1883," and made due application to the Board of Works for a loan for that purpose out of the fund then lying to the credit of the County of Tipperary under the provisions of the said Act; whether, after Correspondence on the subject, the Board of Works assented to a loan of £2,000 for said Town Hall; whether the first set of plans, specifications, and estimates submitted by the Town Commissioners were rejected, on the ground that the estimate was too high; whether a second set of amended plans, &c, by the same architect having been again rejected by the Board, the Town Commissioners employed (at additional expense) another architect, and forwarded new plans; whether the original estimate submitted by this architect would, according to the calculation of the Board of Works themselves, entail an expenditure of only £1,980, out of a proposed loan of £2,000, and whether, by the elimination of one item by the architect, at the suggestion of the Board, this estimate was reduced by £100; whether the Board of Works first intimated that these plans were unacceptable, on the ground that the estimate of £1,980 was too high; whether, after the reduction above referred to, they have now rejected the plans, on the ground that the estimate is too low; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will request the Board of Works to re-consider their decision, and grant the required loan; and, if not, whether he will consent to have the entire Correspondence in relation to this matter laid upon the Table?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)(who replied) said, the facts were as stated in the first paragraph of the Question. As 1267 to the second paragraph, the Board of Works agreed to recommend a loan of £2,000 for the erection of a Town Hall on certain conditions, one of which was that they should be satisfied that the work would be properly carried out for that amount. The plans first submitted were rejected as unsuitable, and they manifestly could not have been carried out for anything approaching the amount of the loan. The second plans were rejected because they could not have been carried out for £2,000. The third plans, as originally submitted, could have been carried out for £1,980; and by the omission of fittings, as suggested by the architect of the Town Commissioners, a saving of £100 could have been effected on the estimate. The objection made by the Board of Works was not that the estimate was too high, but was owing to the imperfect specifications prepared for the work. The Town Commissioners having failed to have the necessary amendments made, the Board were unable to recommend the loan for sanction to the Treasury. If a revised specification were submitted, on which it would be safe for the Town Commissioners to proceed to carry out the work, the Board of Works would be prepared to recommend the granting of the loan.