§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is correct that 133 cottages have been applied for by the Millstreet Union, under the Labourers Acts, Ireland, and that 108 have been authorized by the Local Government Board, and that as yet there are neither any cottages erected or in course of construction; what is the cause of the delay; is it a fact that £56 6s. has been expended in Medical Reports upon these prospected cottages, while £42 5s. 6d. has only been spent in the Macroom Union, where 420 cottages are applied for, and 315 sanctioned by the Local Government Board; Why the disparity in this item; and, why has the Local Government Board paid £39 7s. in the Millstreet Union, and only £43 17s. 6d. in the Macroom Union, for the above-mentioned unequal results?
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet)(who replied) said: The figures given in this Question are correct. The delay in erecting cottages in the Millstreet Union appears to have arisen from an informality in the notices furnished by the Guardians on the owners and occupiers of the lands to be compulsorily taken. The Clerk of the Union reports that the 108 cottages are now in course of erection. The disparity in the medical expenses arises from the fact that the medical officers of Millstreet Union were paid by the Guardians at the rate of 7s. 6d. for each cottage, while in Macroom Union the remuneration was at the rate of 2s. 6d. a house. The comparatively slight difference between the law costs in the two cases, having regard to the number of cottages, is due to the fact that in the Macroom Union there were only two schemes to be dealt with; whereas in the Millstreet case there were 11 such schemes.