[BILL 39.] CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 23 July 1883)

§ COLONEL KING-HARMAN
moved, in page 2, line 20, to leave out the words "Town Commissioners of every town," and insert the words "Boards of Guardians of every Union." He said, he did not wish in any way to prevent money being laid out for the benefit of the counties concerned; but he thought it should be used for the benefit of the two counties, and not for sections; and therefore he proposed to leave out "Town Commissioners," as representing sections, and to place the management of the money, subject to the Board of Works, in the hands of the Boards of Guardians. Of Tipperary he could not speak with particular knowledge; but in Roscommon there were few towns to which the Bill would apply. He believed there were only Boyle, Ballinasloe, Roscommon, and Athlone, and he failed to see why money intended for the benefit of the whole county, should be appropriated to the use of these small towns. If rumour was right, the use of the money had been anticipated in some of these towns. Knowing the county as he did, he believed that Boards of Guardians were the proper persons to point out works of public utility in the county, and works that would be for the benefit of the whole county, rather than Town Commissioners, who must, even with the best intentions, have a partiality in favour of the towns they represented. He did not wish to say they would wilfully and designedly appropriate the money in an improper way; but it was obvious the preference would be given to the advantage of the inhabitants of these not very large towns. Why the urban population should have the sole advantage, he could not see. He put forward the Amendment in no factious spirit of opposition to the Bill; and if it could be shown that the town populations were intended to be benefited by the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act, then he would withdraw all opposition. But his contention was, that the funds 255 set apart for the benefit of Roscommon and Tipperary were not by the Bill distributed, so that these two counties should share; it only provided for the benefit of a very small section of the counties. He trusted the House would consider his a fair proposition—that money should be lent out under the supervision of Boards of Guardians, subject, of course, to the authority of the Local Government Board.
Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 20, to leave out the words "Town Commissioners of every town," and insert the words "Boards of Guardians of every Union."—(Colonel King-Harman.) Question proposed, "That the words 'Town Commissioners of every town,' stand part of the Bill."

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, if this matter were now first under consideration there would be something to be said on behalf of the ben. and gallant Gentleman; but, in fact, if he really desired to carry out his intention, he should have opposed the Bill throughout, and he should have submitted his Amendments in Committee, Amendments which would, in fact, have amounted to an evisceration of the Bill and the construction of a new measure. If he made these two Amendments of which he had given Notice, then every single clause would have to be altered, and it would practically be a new Bill. The Bill was designed for giving this small accumulated fund out in loans to the urban authorities of the two counties, and provided for the terms and conditions of berrowing and lending, the extent, and the rate to be levied for payment; and all these matters would have to be altered to accommodate the view taken by the hon. and gallant Member. Now, if it were being first mentioned, there would be something to be said on behalf of the argument.

§ COLONEL KING-HARMAN
said, he did mention it when the Bill was brought on.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, then the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have taken definite measures to give effect to his wishes.

§ COLONEL KING-HARMAN
said, the Amendments were on the Paper, but the Biil was brought on in his absence.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, the hon. and gallant Member should have renewed his Amendments; there were only two now given Notice of. But, in truth, it 256 was impossible to apply these small sums, something like £2,800 in one case and £4,000 in another — it was impossible to apply them with any beneficial effect to the purposes of the whole country; they could only be applied to the improvement of the small towns. The sums had accumulated because, under the former restricted rules, there were no means of applying them in the manner now proposed for the benefit of towns in the county. The House would do well to support the Bill as it stood, which was meant not for the whole of the county but for towns scattered throughout the county, rather than to attempt a reconstruction of the Bill and a distribution that would have no substantial benefit.

§ COLONEL KING - HARMAN
explained, he had only put down these Amendments because he considered that if one wore carried, that decision would govern all the other clauses of the Bill where the reference to Town Commissioners came in.
Question put, and ayreed to.

§ MR. O'KELLY
said, with the permission of the House, he would move that the Bill be road a third time.

§ MR. SPEAKER
No doubt, if the hon. Member can plead urgency, the House may, if it think fit, allow the Motion.

§ COLONEL KING-HARMAN
said, he must object to this.

§ MR. HEALY
said, was it not according to the practice of the House on the present stage, and when there were no Amendments, to proceed to the third reading as a matter of course? Was it not a constant practice to do so?

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must point out to the hon. Member that it is not the constant practice of the House; but on occasions when a Bill has not been opposed at any of its stages, and particularly at the end of a Session, that course is sometimes taken, and if the hon. Member can plead urgency, it might be taken in this case, if the House think fit.

§ MR. HEALY
said, it would be valuable to know, as a point of Order, did the Speaker lay it down, that if in such a case an hon. Member objected to the third reading, that was sufficient to block the Bill?

§ MR. SPEAKER
No; I have not laid that down.

§ MR. O'KELLY
said, he would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to allow the third reading to be taken; but if he persisted in opposition he would put it down for to-morrow.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. O' Kelly.)
Motion agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.