HC Deb 25 February 1836 vol 31 cc876-81
The Chancellor of the Exchequer

wished to call the attention of the House to the report of the Commissioners of the Shannon, and the recommendations which they had made, pursuant to the order of last Session, for the guidance of the Government in the measures about to be laid before Parliament for facilitating loans for the purpose of aiding both public and private works in that country. He did not go the length of agreeing in the whole of their suggestions, but the Bill which he had since prepared, and hoped to be able to lay before the House in a few days, embodied the most valuable and practical of their propositions. These he would willingly carry into effect, without respecting the appropriation of the monies, and would (under the sanction of such arrangements as he soon expected to see carried into effect) have no hesitation in asking the confidence of the House to enable him to issue Exchequer bills in aid of the public works of Ireland. "When he received Colonel Burgoyne's communications, which were yet required to complete the requisite information, he should bring in his Bill, which he should, wish his hon. Friends to circulate in Ireland amongst their constituents, to obtain their opinions before the House was called on for its decision. He should at present content himself with placing on the Table the report of the Commissioners of the Shannon Navigation.

Mr. Lynch

rose to bear testimony to the great benefits which had resulted, and continued to result, from the operation of the Act of 1831, referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For that Act the people of Ireland were largely indebted to him, and he (Mr. Lynch) was glad to find that his right hon. Friend was determined to follow up and pursue the plan for the promotion of public works in Ireland so wisely adopted by the House at his recommendation, and that of the noble Lord, then Secretary for Ireland. If he (Mr. Lynch) was not previously convinced of the absolute necessity of a wide and extensive measure of this description, the evidence which was given before the Committee of last year would have produced that conviction. The great want of Ireland was the want of employment for the people—the great misfortune of that country was the low price of labour. Notwithstanding the suppression of religious discord, an event which he trusted was now about to be accomplished, Ireland could never be tranquil or happy until the situation of the peasant and the labouring man was improved. This could only be done by education, and increasing the demand for his labour. Do that, and the revenue of the country would be increased. Do so, and the demand for English manufacture will also be increased. Do that, and the expense for police and the army might be diminished. Do that, and the misery of the poor man would be lessened, and comparative comforts and luxuries given to him. The greatest misery prevailed where there was the least employment, and where the lands were left uncultivated. The county of Mayo was a striking example. In Mayo there was the greatest misery and want—in Mayo there was the least demand for the labour of the poor man—in Mayo there was scarce a year passed without famine and great distress—in Mayo there was more uncultivated than cultivated land. By affording employment at home for the people they would lessen, the emigration to this country, so much complained of. Mr. Griffiths, in his evidence before the Committee, stated that he stopped 500 labourers coming over to this country by affording them employment at home; and, having mentioned the name of Mr. Griffiths, he could not avoid alluding to his great efficiency as a public officer, and his great zeal for the improvement of Ireland. The country offered every capability, and the Government and Parliament should, in his opinion, give every facility for improvement and the more extensive employment of the people; and this would be effected by the promotion of public works, and without any cost to the country; for, he was happy to say, that it appeared by the evidence before the Committee, that there was no apprehension of any loss from the loans made under the Act of 1831, and that all the instalments in respect of such loans, and the interest, had been regularly and punctually paid. The Act of 1831, beneficially and usefully as it had operated, was, in many respects, too light, and ought to be relaxed. He did not find fault with his right hon. Friend, for having so commenced, but now that the Act had been found to work well, and that no loss had accrued, or was likely to accrue, and as the Act had been found in many respects too severe, he was rejoiced to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he intended to alter and amend the provisions of the Act. As his right hon. Friend did not state the alterations which he intended to propose, in particular, although he stated he was prepared to adopt many, if not most of the suggestions of the Committee, he (Mr. Lynch) was unwilling at that moment to go minutely into such suggestions, he would, therefore, confine himself to one or two observations. And first, in respect of the interest charged on the loans, it appeared to him most extravagant, that whilst Government could borrow money at a rate not exceeding two and a-half or three per cent., they should charge individuals borrowing from them, five per cent., and public bodies four per cent. Such dealings appeared to him in some degree to partake "of usury, for the Government were not only receiving greatly more than they paid, but the monies borrowed from them were immediately applied in the purchase of excisable articles, and thereby the revenue was greatly increased, and eventually the expenditure of the country would be diminished. No doubt, he might be told by his right hon. Friend, that this increased interest was demanded as a protection against losses, and to provide for the expenses of the Board. Now in respect to the protection against losses, he contended that such protection might be always had by taking good and proper security, and with respect to the expenses of the Board, that might be provided for by a small addition to the costs of Government, and by applying the premiums on Exchequer bills for that purpose, instead of giving them to the borrower as at present, but he also contended that the expense of the Board should be borne by Government, as was the case in reference to the Scotch Board, for which 5,000l. a year was granted. Now in respect to public bodies following the suggestions of the Committee, he would press the following alteration to be made—that instead of the annual instalment of four per cent., as required by the present Act towards payment of the principal in addition to the interest, which also amounted to four per cent., a fixed annual payment of five or at most six per cent, should be made, such annual payment at first to be applied in payment of interest, and then in reduction of the principal. He called for this alteration, because the annual payment of eight per cent., which is at present required, excluded many useful works and undertakings, and which could be accomplished if the annual payment was only five or six per cent. Without the reduction of interest, which, however, he hoped still his right hon. Friend would grant, the difference of time in repayment to the country would not amount to more than a few years; and besides all public works were less able at their commencement to bear the heavy burthen—and according to the present act the heavy payments were at the commencement, and the lighter ones subsequent. He would content himself with, these observations at present, and once more thanking his right hon. Friend for the Act of 1831, and the selection that was made in the appointment of Commissioner of the Board of Works, for a more upright, able, and efficient officer there could not be than Colonel Burgoyne, he would sit down on asking the following questions—whether the loan to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or part of it was repaid, and, secondly, whether it was the intention of Government to renew the Mail-road Act passed in 1834?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

agreed that some alteration in the charges might be justly and beneficially effected. For instance, he did not think it fair that the borrowers should pay all the expenses of the Board, as the charges of other departments than those of public loans were now borne by it; and he would take care to have that alteration made, but he would make none in the rate of interest. Borrowers could not complain of this, for the ordinary rate to them was higher in Ireland, and Government, in attempting to assist one class, must not injuriously disturb existing arrangements, particularly such an influential point as the rate of public interest. However, he meant to give the Commissioners power in special cases to lower the rate of interest charged to facilitate certain works. He was not able to speak of the certain re-enactment of the Loan Act, but it was his intention to introduce a clause that would enable the Board to make a loan at once (without burthening the borrowers with the necessity of making formal application to his Majesty to lodge security as at present) in cases where they found the property of the applicants was perfectly adequate. He mentioned this to show his hon. Friend that he was not inattentive to the recommendations of the Commissioners; but he would not sacrifice a principle by interfering with the rate of public pecuniary transactions.

Mr. Hume

said, that it was thought by some that advantage would arise to Ireland if Government would advance money there at a lower rate of interest than ordinary; but this was an error, for if it was allowed that Ireland wanted the aid of capital from private individuals, and it confessedly did, great danger and inconvenience to the country at large would arise by interfering with the rate of their supply, which was ten times the yearly amount that Government afforded by these loans. He indulged no bad will to Ireland in the expression of this opinion, which he felt convinced was the true view of the case.

Mr. W. S. O'Brien

was happy to hear that such improvements were in the contemplation of Government for Ireland, but he "must enter his protest against the principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that because the rate of interest was higher there than in England, the rate of charge on the loan should be proportionately high. How could they expect to encourage improvement in Ireland, if they sent Commissioners there in the capacities of Jews, to extort from the improving and industrious the highest premium from their pecuniary necessities? There were no private money-lenders there for such purpose, or whom the Government could injure by even dealing. The country was poor, and really needed assistance in the rate of interest, as well as in the extension of loans; and it was only justice that the borrower there should have the benefit of obtaining the money on the same terms that Government obtained it here for him.

Report laid on the Table.