COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 21 July 1881)

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, that he understood that although Notice of opposition had been placed against this Bill, it being a Money Bill, the Notice did not prevent it being taken.

§ MR. SPEAKER
As the hon. Member is aware, the Resolution with regard to opposed Business does not apply to Money Bills; and, therefore, does not apply in this instance.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he quite understood that, and he rose in the full belief that it was competent for the House to consider this Bill and resolve itself into Committee. His object in rising was that he thought the House should not proceed with the Bill without distinctly understanding the remarkable circumstances under which it was rendered necessary. The Bill was read a second time at 2 or 3 in the morning, and the Government gave no explanation of it, nor were they asked to do so; but subsequently to the second reading a Paper had been issued giving the history of the transactions under which the House was called upon to pass the Bill, and to wipe off as a bad debt no less than £1,200,000 advanced under an Act of Parliament 50 years ago to relieve the tithe owners of Ireland. The owners of the tithes in Ireland at that time were in great difficulties arising out of the collection of tithes, and applied to the Government to render them assistance, which the Government did by advancing on loan large sums of money. These loans were chargeable on the tithes, and the tithe owners undertook to repay them in five annual instalments. The Government, with great benevolence, allowed them £1,000,000 without interest. But the point he wished to draw attention to was this. He was quite sure that if Parliament in those days had been asked to make a grant to the Church of Ireland, that would have been refused, no doubt, by the House of Commons as unreasonable, as the Church of Ireland, 1593 with its endowments, then existed. But it was advanced in the form of a loan, and his complaint was that whoever were responsible for seeing the provisions of that Act of Parliament carried out, and that the loan was repaid in five yearly instalments, were guilty of a gross breach of duty in not seeing that the payments were made. Parliament granted the loan for purposes and upon security with which it was satisfied; but if a Public Department was to act in the manner it had acted with regard to this large sum of money, then the House of Commons had not the slightest guarantee that when large sums of money were advanced to Ireland that they would ever be repaid; and he ventured to declare that a transaction so extraordinary was a discredit to every Government Department charged with the application of the public money. Of course, after a number of years, this sum of money raised by the issue of Exchequer Bills was funded, and appeared to have gone out of the view of Parliament, and now Parliament was asked to write it off as a bad debt. In his opinion, this sum should have been made the first charge on the Irish Church Surplus, and it was a matter of wonder to him that at the time of the Irish Church Act nothing was done to secure the payment of this sum. It was entirely overlooked in 1870, and since then Parliament had been making use of the Church Surplus for various purposes, amongst the rest to assist landlords by letting them have loans from the Church Surplus at absurdly low rates of interest, and, at the same time, this large sum of money was reasonably the first charge on the Surplus. The Treasury said they considered it their duty to be vigilant in vindicating the rights of the State, otherwise grants of public money would be obtained where Parliament had no intention of making such grants, and with that he quite agreed; but where had been the vigilance in this case, and what did they do to get the money? If it was the duty of the Department to look after the public money, he did not think the House should be willing to agree to a Bill to wipe off such a sum as a bad debt. At all events, he had called attention to the remarkable circumstances of the case, so discreditable to the administrators of the public funds, and it should be a warning to the Government 1594 and to the House not to lightly lend money without at the same time taking care that there was sufficient security for repayment to prevent the country ultimately becoming such a great loser.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, the hon. Member had done good service in calling attention to the large remissions in the Bill, and pressing on the attention of the House the danger of making these loans. In looking back at the debates that occurred when the last of these loans was made, he did not find that it strongly excited the attention of the then House of Commons. It was quite clear at that time that there was small doubt that the money would be recovered. It had stood in the accounts as a good debt until the present time, and he did not think it was altogether creditable to the national book-keeping that it should have stood so long on the books when so few payments had been made during the last 40 years. As to recovering it from the clergy, that was absolutely out of the question. Whether, on the other hand, it would have been wise to make it a charge on the Church Surplus Fund he would not say; but it could not be done now, and he believed the best course would be to do what any good business man would do—wipe off the debt.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said, he supposed it would be admitted it was a bad debt. The noble Lord was placed in an unfortunate position, having to bring in a Bill for the remission of an old loan on the very night when the Government, against a strong opposition, was pressing the expediency of granting a new loan.

§ MR. HEALY
said, it was the friends of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) who were the cause of the Bill. This £1,000,000 went to the Irish landlords, and it was because of that that the House was now called upon to make the remission. Two years ago, under the Relief Act, another loan was made to the landlords out of the Church Surplus Fund, and he would venture to say that at some future date the State would have to make this good. All the money went to the landlords, not a penny of it to the tenants, and the Irish people continued to pay the tithes till they were extinguished. If these loans had been made to the tenants, they would have been screwed out to the uttermost 1595 farthing without mercy, and the tenants would have been turned off to America or elsewhere.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
remarked, that these loans were not made to landlords, but to the persons interested until the arrears of tithes could be raised.

§ MR. HEALY
said, the loans were not made directly to the landlords, but it was the compensation under which they undertook to pay the tithes.