[BILL 355.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 9 August 1888)

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
said, he had on previous occasions endeavoured to raise his feeble voice to show that the Irish Board of Works, to whom a sum of £1,000,000 sterling was proposed to be advanced, was not deserving of that confidence and trust bestowed upon it by Her Majesty's Government. The hour was very late; and, having made his protest quite recently, he would only now accentuate that by moving that Progress be reported, and the discussion might be deferred to an occasion more fitting. The Irish Board of Works had been impeached, and found guilty of manifold acts of gross injustice almost amounting to fraud.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
said, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion. He need only 244 indicate how extremely inconvenient it would be to Members of the House to be detained two or three days longer to pass Bills that must be passed. It would be for general convenience if the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion and allow the Committee to proceed.

§ DR. TANNER
said, he always recognized the fair and honourable spirit displayed by the hon. Gentleman; but the question to be considered was, why was the Board of Works to get control of this sum of £1,000,000 sterling? He mistrusted the payments to Grand Juries. His own experience was that Grand Juries were capable of actions of the grossest fraud; and accordingly, when he saw it set forth that certain money was to be given by the Commissioners to Grand Juries to pay off certain amounts, and also that certain other monies were to be paid to tenants, he could not help letting his mind dwell on the old proverb. He knew perfectly well that these people were quite capable of corrupting the tenantry of Ireland, and he believed he was doing his duty, though the hour was late and hon. Members impatient, in raising the question why should this money be given to a corrupt Body like the Irish Board of Works? Again and again had he brought before the House cases of wanton, wilful expenditure and misapplication of public money, and he could not avoid expressing his explicit remonstrance on this proposal to give the Board control of £1,000,000. To go thoroughly into the matter was too late; but he might just call attention to one item, the expenditure of £123,151 on the Clare Slob Land reclamation. Last year, in connection with this expenditure, a Colleague of his——

§ MR. BYRON REED (Bradford, E.)
rose to Order. Was not the hon. Member trifling with the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the hon. Member (Dr. Tanner) must remember he had moved to report Progress, and must address his observations to that Motion.

§ THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.)
said, no one admired more than he did the usefulness and vivacity of his hon. Friend's contributions towards debate; he would, however, remember that the arrangement and the intention of the Govern- 245 ment was to take the first seven Orders of the Day, and that Irish Members were waiting to take part in the disposal of Irish measures. He would submit to his hon. Friend that he was inflicting severe physical penalties on his Colleagues.

§ DR. TANNER
said, of course, he was bound to regard any rebuke, no matter how hard it was to bear, from a senior Member of his Party, and one of the most eloquent Members of the House. He had moved to report Progress, and was about to point out in a very few words—when he was interrupted by the hon. Member opposite—that during the debate this time last year, this Clare Slob Land Scheme——

§ MR. BYRON REED
again rose to Order, and asked, was not the hon. Member still trifling with the Committee? If he were in Order he would claim to move that the Question be now put.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he must again remind the hon. Member (Dr. Tanner) to speak to the Motion to report Progress, and try to be more succinct.

§ DR. TANNER
said, since he was not allowed to explain, and was subject to interruptions from hon. Members who had just woke up, he would content himself with having made his Motion.

§ MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)
said, he was in accord with his hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) in his criticisms upon the Board of Works; but considering that the Bill contained items for labourers' cottages in Ireland, and that there would be other opportunities for enforcing his protest, he would add his voice to that of his hon. Colleagues in asking his hon. Friend to allow the Bill to proceed.

§ MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)
said, he did not know whether he ought to raise the question, and expect an answer from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Jackson); but there was an item for the improvement of leaseholds, not a large, but still a substantial sum. Could the hon. Gentleman give any explanation in regard to this application of public money——

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the question had no relation to the 1st clause; the hon. Member was probably referring to the Schedule.

§ MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)
said, he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether he thought the loans to tenant farmers for the improvement of their holdings was a discreet outlay of public money? He had heard suspicions expressed as to the manner in which examinations took place in regard to these advances, and seeing the unfavourable position of Irish tenant farmers, and noticing, moreover, that the repayments were exceedingly small, it was not a profitable proceeding. The sums were small, and he did not know in what part of Ireland these particular tenants were; but that was not material. Then there was the Slob Land Reclamation Company, £129,000 odd, and it must be perfectly clear to anybody who knew anything about the matter that the money was thrown away, and finally lost. He would ask whether or not the outlay was entirely finished; and, if so, whether this would be accepted as a caution in time to come to refrain from listening to private speculators and swindling promoters of schemes? Let the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury put his foot down firmly for all time to come—to lend no ear to any schemes unless bonâ fide security could be shown.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
said, hon. Members might be under the impression that this was a sum about to be lent; but he might just say that he quite agreed with the hon. Member as to the necessity for security, for he was afraid these must he looked upon as bad debts. As to putting his foot down and refusing loans for any such purpose, he thought hon. Members were aware that he held in very high esteem the desire to limit the obligations of the Treasury in this direction, and he could promise, as far as possible, to keep a firm hand on the public money.

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
said, that was all very well; but he would point out that practically the House was asked to sanction more expenditure in the same direction. It was too grossly absurd and grotesque. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members who interrupted should have some experience of the slob land, and they would understand this 247 better. If this £1,000,000 were entrusted to the Board of Works, as probably it would be, without proper consideration, there was every reason to fear that these bad precedents would be followed in spite of repeated warnings, and the desire of Irishmen that the money should be spent in works really productive and benefiting the country.