§ Amendment of Acts.
§ Clause 2 (Minimum rate of interest for loans after 1st of April, 1879).
§ MR. GRAY, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from "or" to "Ireland" inclusive, observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that, in consequence of some communications with reference to the mode in which loans were made, he proposed to exempt Ireland from the operation of the Act. His Amendment was proposed for the purpose of carrying out that object. He proposed to omit "Ireland" from the clause, with respect to public works, in order to make it perfectly clear. Probably the examination of the Return which had been presented to the House that year, on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, had induced the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to that conclusion; for he (Mr. Gray) found that the amount of loans granted to Ireland did not bear that relative proportion to the population of Ireland, as compared with the other two Kingdoms, that they ought to do. The total population of England and Wales, taken roughly, was 20,000,000, and the total population of Ireland 5,500,000. The total amount already advanced in England and Wales was £33,700,000; whereas, in Ireland, only £5,100,000 had been advanced. If the amount had been given to Ireland in the same proportion that its population bore to England and Wales, then £8,780,000 ought to have been advanced to Ireland. He proposed that the amount which was clue to Ireland should be advanced on the less onerous terms upon which money had been advanced in England. The reason that Ireland was behindhand in getting advances was that particular Acts were passed for England alone, and were not extended to Ireland for some time sub- 786 sequently. The Public Health Act was one of the Acts which was first passed for England, and, some time after, for Ireland. Under that Act large sums, amounting to £4,300,000, had been granted to the large towns in England for sanitary purposes; but in Ireland there was no corresponding sum, for they had not obtained any money to speak of under the Sanitary Acts. He thought, therefore, that Ireland ought to be granted some few years' exemption, in order to enable it to make up for the time which had been lost. With respect to the Artizans' Dwellings Act, £1,163,000 had been advanced to England; whereas Ireland had received nothing for purposes connected with that Act, except £12,000 in Dublin. They had granted large sums to Birmingham, and to various local boards in England; but in Ireland comparatively small amounts had been advanced. The present system was very unjust to Ireland, and the moment the Act was passed Ireland would have to pay a higher rate of interest than Birmingham and other places in England were now paying. For these reasons, he thought this Amendment, that Ireland should be exempted from the operation of the Act, was reasonable. About £960,000 had been advanced to local bodies, and laid out in respect of parks and other improvements in England; but not a single shilling had been advanced to Ireland for the same purpose. The result was that Ireland, in advances, was £1,500,000 below the proportion that it ought to bear to England. He wished to allude to one matter which the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had mentioned. It had been said that a very large sum which had been lent to local bodies in Ireland had been irretrievably lost. He might say that that amount was lent during the Famine years, and that it was not looked upon as likely to be repaid, but was erased from the account altogether. He did not think that that was a kind of thing that was likely to occur again; and, at all events, that was not the class of grant which ought to be taken into consideration in judging whether Ireland had received its proper proportion of advances. He did not think that those grants ought to weigh against them. It was the feeling of Irish Members that until they 787 obtained an opportunity of utilizing those Acts, which had only been extended to Ireland during the last few years, after having been passed for England some years previously, it would not be fair to impose a higher rate of interest on Ireland than that paid by the richer country.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "or by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. Gray.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if the process which had been going on were allowed to continue it would be difficult to foresee how it would end. It was absolutely necessary to put a stop upon that process as soon as possible. He could not assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), because it would introduce an inequality between England and Ireland with respect to the same kind of loans, which he did not think there was any reason for doing. The Artizans' Dwellings Act and the Sanitary Acts differed very considerably in their nature from the Loan Act, which they proposed to treat separately; and he was not, therefore, prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member and exempt Ireland from the operation of the Act. He thought that it would be unnecessary to make any distinction with regard to Ireland in the class of the cases in respect of which the Bill applied to England. It should be remembered, also, that there was a discretion in the Treasury to decide what rates would be necessary to enable the loans to be made. After the discussion that had taken place, and upon the understanding that the Treasury was to act upon the power to increase the rates, if necessary, very much in the sense of the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill, he thought that the matter ought to be further investigated, and he was ready to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). Hitherto, the power in various Acts enabling the Treasury to increase the rates had not been acted upon; but by inserting an Amendment in the Bill good notice would be given of the intention of the Treasury.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had heard with very great satisfaction the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he hoped that, under the circumstances, the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) would withdraw his Amendment. As that concession was made, he would not probably desire that Ireland should be placed in any different position from the rest of the country. He wished to ask one question of the Government. In Birmingham, they had adopted a great scheme under the Artizans' Dwellings Act, which had involved a loan of £1,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it was necessary to stop these loans. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he introduced the Artizans' Dwellings Act, anticipated that its operation would be stopped in the manner in which it was now said to be necessary? Because one large municipality had adopted a large scheme under that Act it was imputed to it as a crime, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer now said that he was bringing in a Bill to prevent further expenditure of that description.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREthanked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession which he had made. The proposal was a satisfactory one. The Bill, as now agreed to, would not commit Parliament to the policy of raising the terms of loans to local authorities. That question would be referred to a Committee next Session, as promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the meantime, it was perfectly understood that the Government, in carrying out these loans, would be enabled to charge such a rate of interest as they might think fit. But it was not probable that between now and next Session any loans would be effected subject to the new terms proposed by the Government, for the right hon. Member for the City of London had already pointed out that the loans for the present financial year were already agreed to, and, as such, were exempted under a clause of this Bill. When the Government came to consider the matter, and to take the opinion of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, he thought that it would be 789 found, to a great extent, impracticable to carry out the scale which they had submitted to the House. There was one point to which he should like to draw attention. He should like to know whether loans for the purpose of the Artizans' Dwellings Act were to be stopped? He ventured to say that it would be very undesirable to put a stop to the loans for schemes under that Act.
THE CHANOELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked, that he did not mean to put a stop to the system of loans. All he intended to do was to prevent money being lent at unremunerative rates of interest.
MR. SHAW LEFEVEEunderstood that another object of the Bill was to limit the application of loans. He understood that that was to be put a stop to. He did not think that it was desirable to carry that plan out with respect to the Artizans' Dwellings and other Acts.
§ MR. GRAYthought that it would save the Committee the trouble of a Division if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a little more specific. He (Mr. Gray) did not clearly understand the meaning of the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wanted to know the meaning of what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier in the evening—that in consequence of a communication he received from the Board of Works in Ireland he proposed to exempt that country from the operation of the Act? He was anxious to ascertain to what extent Ireland was to be exempted, if it was to be exempted at all. If the right hon. Gentleman's statement was correctly understood, he ought to assent to the Amendment. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not consent to the proposal that was suggested in regard to the discrepancy between Ireland and this country with respect to future loans from the Treasury. That question, however, ought to be taken into consideration by the Treasury in dealing with future loans to Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman would give him an assurance to the effect that substantial justice would be done he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that there were certain 790 special Acts under which loans were made from the Public Works Loan Fund in Ireland. The Land Act, and the Acts for the improvement of land for drainage purposes, were those to which he alluded. Perhaps he might have conveyed an impression that it was not intended to affect Irish loans; but what ho meant was, that it was not intended to interfere with loans in respect of those Acts; but with regard to loans for sanitary purposes, harbours of refuge, and artizans' dwellings, he saw no reason for putting them in a different position in Ireland to what they were placed in England and Scotland. The Treasury would fix such a rate of interest as, in its judgment, would be sufficient to secure the Treasury from loss in respect of those loans, not only for England but for Ireland and Scotland. They considered that there ought to be a graduated scale. They no longer proposed to ask Parliament to frame those rates, but they now simply asked Parliament to give them power, according to their judgment, to secure the Treasury from loss by charging higher rates of interest; at the same time, they gave notice of the principle upon which they intended to proceed. Next year they would have a Committee to consider the subject of loans generally, and it would go into other matters bearing upon the subject, such as the granting greater facilities to local authorities for obtaining loans.
§ MR. GRAYobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman had dashed all the hopes which his first speech had raised in his mind. He would call attention to the Public Health Act, which, for Ireland, was not passed for some time after the English Act; it had never yet been taken advantage of in Ireland. Ho thought that, in all fairness, Ireland was entitled to loans at the old scale—they were entitled to the proportion that would bring them on a level with England. They were in a small minority; but as substantial injustice would be done he must press his Amendment to a Division.
MR. SHAW LEFEVEEsuggested that the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) should divide upon Report the next day.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 2: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 230.)
§
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 18, to leave out all after "Act," and to insert—
Or such other rate as may be deemed necessary, in order to enable the loans to be made without loss to the Exchequer.
§ Amendment agreed to; words substituted accordingly.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Restriction on amount of loan to one borrower).
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 2, to insert the words "under any special Act," after the word "Ireland."
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he thought it necessary to retain this clause, as it had a serious effect in relation to the Artizans' Dwellings Act?
§ MAJOR NOLANasked if the "Bright Clauses" were exempt?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that they were. It was necessary to retain the clause, in order to check large demands in respect to public loans; and, so far as the Exchequer was concerned, he was bound to say he thought there ought to be some limit.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. GRAY moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 4, to leave out "one," and insert "two." The Amendment, he said, was directed against the proposal to limit the amount to £100,000. If this Bill passed it would lead to serious inconvenience to some towns, and interfere with proposed improvements. The hands of local authorities would be greatly tied; a drainage scheme, for instance, should be executed as a whole, and not piecemeal, and it might cost much more than £100,000. In some cases this limitation would render it impossible to carry out sanitary improvements. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would take the matter into consideration, and come to the conclusion that it would be 792 more reasonable to fix a certain proportion of valuation than any arbitrary sum.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpointed out that there was a great deal of difference between small and large bodies. In case of large towns, there ought to be greater facilities for raising money, and there were but few towns or bodies that were likely to come for such large sums as those mentioned in the clause. He could not consent to the alteration; but he would be quite ready, to consider in the Select Committee what could be done to facilitate the proper raising of these sums.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that under the Public Health Act (Ireland) the money could not be borrowed except from the Board of Works, and if the right hon. Gentleman agreed to the Amendment he could introduce the question next year. However, he would not divide the Committee, and would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, as the question raised was a very important he must take a Division upon it.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREcould not see, as it was quite true that the large towns only would want to borrow large sums of money, why the Government should not accept the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 12: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 231.)
§ Clause 4 (Repayment not to be by annuity, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 89), by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 5 (Saving for old loans, and for loans especially saved by 39 & 40 Vict. c. 31, ss. 4 & 5).
§
MR. STEVENSON moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, at end of clause, to add—
Nor to any loan to any harbour authority under 'The Harbours and Passing Tolls Act, & c., 1861,' and the Acts amending the same.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that the question of advances for the purposes of harbours 793 was one that caused most trouble, and required to be cheeked. The works done at the harbours were, no doubt, of great value; but it would be hardly possible to except advances in respect of them from the operation of the Bill.
§ MR. STEVENSONquite admitted that the terms of the Acts defining the kind of harbours that were to be aided wore too wide, and required limitation, and he thought that it would be a subject for inquiry before the Committee to be appointed. It was undesirable, however, to make a change in the meantime.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREhoped that grants would continue to be made to harbours of refuge. The Harbours and Passing Tolls Act was passed for the purpose of promoting the formation of harbours of refuge.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GRAY moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 19, after "Ireland," to insert the words—"Nor for any advances required for the improvement of harbours." He did that because he considered it was a very strong point, and it was not right to refuse them any change under the Irish Act.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. GRAY moved, as an Amendment to page 2, line 19, to insert at the end of the clause "nor to any loans under the Act forty-one and forty-two Victoria, chapter fifty-two."
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that with respect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. James Stewart) he was prepared to adopt it. He therefore moved, in page 2, line 19, at the end of the clause, to add—
Nor any advance to the local authority of the burgh of Greenock under 'The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1875.'
§ Amendment agreed to; words added.
§ MR. GRAYtrusted that the right hon. Gentleman would also take into his consideration the Amendment which he had to propose with regard to advances under 794 the Dublin Main Drainage Act, 1871. It was hard that a local authority desiring to obtain money for improvements sanctioned by Parliament should not have an opportunity of doing so. He hoped, therefore, in the special case in question, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to his Amendment. He begged to move, in page 2, at the end of clause, to add—"Nor to any advance under 'The Dublin Main Drainage Act, 1871,' or any Act amending the same."
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked, that the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) made a very good fight for his country; but he did not think it possible to accede to his Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 19, at the end of the clause, to insert, as a separate paragraph—
Provided, That where though a loan has not been actually granted before the passing of this Act, negotiations for the same have proceeded so far as to make it in the opinion of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury inequitable for such loan to be subject to the provisions of this Act or any of them, such loan shall, for the purpose of these provisions, be deemed to be a loan granted before the passing of this Act.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREobserved, that the Proviso gave such a large discretion to the Treasury that it did not appear to him necessary to put in any special exceptions.
§ Amendment agreed to; paragraph inserted accordingly.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Power of Public Works Loans Commissioners to lend, and of Peabody trustees to borrow).
§ MR. WHITWELLinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it necessary to preserve that clause in the Bill? There would be an exceptional scale provided in that particular case, and it was quite contrary to the principle of the calculations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed by the Bill.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the clause was a necessary one. The peculiarity of the case was, that sites had already been cleared 795 for dwellings for the labouring classes in London. The Peabody Trustees, who wished to erect buildings on those sites, had property, on which they would be willing to borrow money, provided it could be advanced by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. At present, the Acts of Parliament only empowered the Public Works Loans Commissioners to advance money to municipal bodies, and not to trustees, for the purpose of erection of dwellings for the labouring classes. In the case in question, the security was peculiarly good. The Trustees possessed a large amount of property, and the term for which the money was proposed to be advanced was not to exceed 15 years. Therefore, he thought they were doing an excellent thing in giving power to lend money to the Peabody Trustees. The hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had put down an Amendment enabling other bodies of Trustees to borrow in the same way. Thinking that that was only right, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to insert a clause which would enable the same thing to be done in respect to other associations.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that, by the sale of land to the Peabody Trustees, the Metropolitan Board of Works had lost a largo sum of money. He could not see that there was any reason for treating the Peabody Trustees in the exceptionally favourable manner that it was proposed to do.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Peabody Trustees were in a peculiar position, inasmuch as all the money which they received from rents they were obliged to expend upon additional buildings. They made no profit, and their sole object and raison ďetre was to increase the dwelling accommodation of the working classes by the erection of more buildings. The exemption proposed in the present case was to enable them to build in two years what they would otherwise take 10 years to do, and the exemption would accordingly be very much to the advantage of the working classes in London. The Peabody Trustees would undertake to repay to the Exchequer the amount advanced in 15 years, and they would give as security for the loan not only the ground upon which the proposed buildings were to be erected, but all their other houses 796 in London; and unless the Trustees could get the money at the rate proposed they could not by any possibility carry out their intentions. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) seemed to think that they had obtained the land on which they were going to build cheaply; but there was no ground for saying that they had not paid the full value for that land.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREremarked, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he had agreed to a provision permitting the Government to make loans to charitable Societies. It seemed to him that to lend money to charitable Societies was a very doubtful policy. The Peabody Trustees were, no doubt, a very responsible body, and the money would be well secured; but, by lending the money to them, they were admitting the principle of lending to charitable Societies, and that seemed to him to open the question as to whether it should be confined to London alone.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the Peabody Trustees were put before the Committee as if they were under some disability, and as if the Public Works j Loans Commissioners had not the same powers of dealing with them as they had in dealing with Companies formed; for similar objects. If that were so, there might be a strong case for the clause in question. He must point out, however, that the Companies formed for building dwelling houses were private speculations, realizing a certain, if moderate, interest on their capital, and lending their money at low rates was giving them security for their interest. He doubted very much whether the new sphere into which they had entered of charitable aid in lending money to build dwelling houses for the labouring classes was at all desirable.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsuggested that the subject of aid to charitable institutions should be untouched by the Bill, and should be left to the consideration of the Committee to be appointed in the next Session. It was a very wide question whether the Government ought to advance money to Societies of that character. It was proposed to allow the Peabody Trustees to obtain £300,000 of public money—three times as much as was advanced to any municipal body. 797 He should like to know whether they were to have that sum in two different years?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the amount required to be borrowed was £300,000, extending over a period of three years.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that it was a mistake to suppose that anything was being done which was contrary to the spirit of the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act. By that Act power was given to advance money on loan, not only to local authorities, but to any legally constituted Company, Society, or Association, which would be under the Act as a trading or manufacturing Company. The Act applied to the Company over which the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) presided; but it did not apply to the Peabody Trustees, because they did not happen to be a Company, or an Association, for making-profit, but only Trustees for a particular purpose. Yet they wore doing the same work as the other Companies, and it was now proposed to put them in the same position as the other Companies under the Act, and to reduce the rate of interest from 4 to 3½ per cent.
§ MR. COURTNEYinquired why the interest was reduced?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, because the term for which the money was to be borrowed was only 15 years.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINinquired, whether, at the end of the 15 years, they were to be permitted to re-borrow? [THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes.] Unless re-borrowing were prohibited, he did not see the justice of the exemption, as the borrowing might really be for 30 years.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked, that that would not be permitted. At the same time, lie would point out that there was a great deal of difference. At the end of the 15 years they could re-examine the security.
§ MR. WHITWELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had wisely decided to prohibit the lending of public money to municipalities and other public bodies. But while closing the door on one side he had thought fit to open it on the other, and had opened it very widely 798 too. He (Mr. Whitwell) was not going into the original Acts; but would only say that they enabled institutions requiring money under the Artizans' Dwellings Act to borrow it at 4 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was now proposing to reduce that rate of interest.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that he had suggested, a few minutes ago, to increase the amount that might be advanced to any one public body from £100,000 to £200,000; but it was met in such a discouraging way by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he (Mr. Gray) did not venture to press it to a Division; but now he found that even £300,000 might be borrowed by Trustees. Why, he asked, should the difference be made? It was, as the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Whitwell) had said, at the very time that they restricted, they opened a very wide door in another direction, for that really was what it was doing when they reduced the percentage. They might be certain the money would be re-borrowed at the end of the first term of 15 years; and he could not see why £300,000 should be given at an exceptionally low rate for two short terms. The only reason why that advantage was to be given was that the buildings existed in London. Even the Artizans' Dwellings Act was a Metropolitan Act, which was extended to the outer portions of the Kingdom as an afterthought. He could not quite see why that should be the case, and he thought the clause should be struck out. Besides, now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an Amendment in his name on the Notice Paper relating to the matter, there was no necessity at all for the clause. The only reason he could see for it was that the Bill commenced in the Metropolis.
§ MR. COURTNEYwas proceeding to discuss the rate of interest which the new clause, with reference to loans to Labourers' Dwellings Companies, proposed to charge, and the rate of interest which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Maidstone, when—
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member was raising a question which would be more properly discussed upon Report.
§ MR. COURTNEYcontended it was lending money to capitalists for the purposes of speculation.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked, that he had been about to vote with the Government upon the question of the Peabody Trustees; but he had been converted to the other view.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Regulations as to advances by National Debt Commissioners to the Public Works Loans Commissioners) agreed to.
§ Clause 8 (Application of Public Works Loan Act, 1875, to sum advanced by National Debt Commissioners) agreed to.
§ Composition of Debt.
§ Clause 9 (Composition of debt on Port Erin, Isle of Man).
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 11, after "1863," to insert "and the Isle of Man Harbours Amendment Act, 1864."
§ Amendment agreed to; words added.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 20, to leave out from "whereas" to "by" in line 25.
§ Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 10 (Commissioners may compound debt due by Isle of Man Harbour Commissioners) agreed to.