SUCK DRAINAGE BILL. (Hansard, 8 August 1889)

§ MR. STOREY (Sunderland)
There was a public Bill for the drainage of the Suck recently before the House. That Bill has been withdrawn, and now we are to have a private Bill considered upon the Suspension of the Standing Orders. It is a Bill of an extraordinary character. It is not, in a right sense, a private Bill at all. It was originally a public Bill, but in the process of being passed through this House it has been transformed into a private Bill, and a private Bill of the very worst type. There has been inserted in it a clause empowering the Government to hand over to private speculators a sum of £50,000 of the public money.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,) University of Dublin
No.

§ MR. STOREY
As I understand the Bill, it was originally a measure to enable a body of persons who had commenced operations for the drainage of the River Suck to continue those operations. The promoters, consisting principally of landowners, obtained some years ago power to carry out these works and to obtain the money from the Government by loan. When they proceeded with the work, that happened to them which has happened to every similar body in Ireland —they found that the estimates placed before them were woefully and hope- 741 lessly inadequate. All the money has been spent, and now they come to Parliament for extended powers. The Government introduced a public Bill to enable them to grant £50,000 out of the public funds, but under the stress of the opposition which it met, the Bill was withdrawn, and now a clause empowering the Government to give the £50,000 has been, or is to be, inserted in the present Bill.

§ MR. MADDEN
No.

§ MR. STOREY
The hon. Gentleman says "No." Then how is it intended to get this money? Every one knows that if this sum of £50,000 is not given in a free grant it will be impossible to go on with the works. The money is absolutely necessary, and the Government have hit upon this excellent plan of granting it. They were conscious that they would be unable to pass a public Bill this year, and they, therefore, support this private Bill in which they propose to insert a clause guaranteeing as a free gift this sum of £50,000 of the public money.

§ MR. MADDEN
No.

§ MR. STOREY
Then what is the object of the clause? If this were a private Drainage Bill under which the promoters proposed to carry out the works at their own expense or under existing Acts I should not have felt it necessary to take any objection. The fact is that the promoters have begun the work; they have expended a large sum of money, and they find that the effect produced has been absolutely nil. So far it has done more harm than good, and unless they can get more money than was originally asked for the whole of their works will be useless. Clause 5 of the amended copy of the Bill issued to Members says that the costs, charges, and expenses before and after the passing of the Act shall be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament as a free grant, not exceeding in the whole £50,000.

§ MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)
May I be allowed to interrupt the hon. Member for a moment? It is perfectly true that a clause to that effect appeared in the Bill, but it could not be inserted in the Bill until a previous Resolution had been agreed to by the House, therefore, when in the Committee the clause was struck out, and the Bill as it now appears is in pre- 742 cisely the form to which the hon. Member takes no objection. It is a Bill for the raising of capital, and it provides for the due representation of the persons interested upon the Drainage Board.

§ MR. STOREY
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I have no doubt that the Bill, from his point of view, is an innocent Bill, but from my point of view it shows the trail of the serpent. It proposes that the Government shall have power to lend £115,000 to these gentlemen, but the Government know and the House ought to know that admittedly that sum is not sufficient for the purpose. But if this Bill passes it is intended to bring in a further Bill of a single clause empowering the Government to give an additional sum of £50,000. This may be an exceedingly clever proceeding, but it is one to which I take a serions objection, and I beg to move as an Amendment that standing order No. 84 be struck out of the Motion.

§ SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy)
The ways of this House are extremely wonderful. About five minutes ago I went to the office of the House to get a copy of the Bill, and I found in it a clause to the effect that the taxpayers of this country are to pay £50,000 towards the expenses of this Suck Drainage. Therefore, hon. Members cannot be blamed if they have been misled and knew nothing of this clause having been struck out. I am reminded very much of what happened in the American War. Armed cruisers were fitted up, but the guns were not put on board, they were sent out from this country perfectly innocent cruisers, but they met the guns somewhere else and took them on board. That seems to me to be precisely the nature of this Bill. The Government want to smuggle this dangerous cruiser through the custom house of the House of Commons, and then put the guns on board in another stage. In that case all criticism in regard to the Bill will be evaded. The Government have learned their lesson with regard to the public Bill, and now they want to avoid criticism. It appears to me to be hardly a fair way of dealing with the matter. None of us knew of the existence of such a proposal, and it was only by accident we were warned that such a measure 743 was to be brought forward. So far from the Bill being an innocent measure, I look upon it as a cruiser which is to be armed hereafter, and I shall, therefore, second the Amendment.

§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)
This is really a very simple Bill, and although the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has called it clever, I look upon it as an honest and straightforward proceeding. What has happened is this: A number of proprietors have established the Suck Drainage Board. They have spent £100,000 and the whole value of the works will disappear and the money be absolutely lost unless something further is done. There can be no doubt that great good has been done to the low lying lands by the works already constructed. The people of the district have spent £100,000 and the Government is asked to give £50,000. The time for the hon. Member for Sunderland to raise an objection is when the Government come forward to give this £50,000 as a free grant. The hon. Member seems to think that the Government have done something dreadfully wrong in dropping a public Bill and allowing the promoters to bring in a private Bill, but he forgets that he himself offered such an amount of opposition to the public Bill that it was impossible at this period of the Session to pass it. I sincerely trust that the House will not allow the Bill, which is a perfectly innocent measure, to be rejected because the Government may hereafter be called upon to contribute £50,000.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy said that the ways of this House are perfectly wonderful. So are the ways of some hon. Members in the House. Last year when the Ulster Canal Bill was before the House the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) was mainly instrumental in handing over to a private company a sum of £300,000 against the wishes of the Irish Members, and I now ask that the same measure should be meted out to the promoters of the present Bill. In this case we have a body of landowners who have already expended their own money—a good deal 744 of it foolishly no doubt—asking for a Government Grant. Why should they not have it? This country has robbed Ireland long enough, and it is high time that we got a little of our money back again. I fail to see why hon. Members should now be straining at a gnat after having swallowed a camel in connection with the Ulster Canal. In my opinion, this is a most excellent Bill, and it is the first time in the history of the landlords of Ireland that they have proposed to give representation to the ratepayers. During the last 90 years this country has taken 300 or 400 million sterling out of Ireland, and we are now simply trying to get £50,000 of it back again. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that unless we drain the Shannon it is of very little use to drain the Suck, but the engineers are of a different opinion, and I am ready to place my drainage conscience, if there is such a commodity, in their hands.

§ * THE CHIEF SECRETAEY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E
As the House is aware, the Government originally brought in a Bill dealing with the drainage of the Suck. We have now withdrawn that Bill, and in lieu of it a private Bill has been brought in. I am aware that great objection was raised in various quarters to the Government scheme, but perhaps the same objections do not apply to this measure. A very large amount of money has already been expended upon the drainage of the Suck; a considerable number of labourers are at this moment engaged upon the works, and unless this Bill passes this Session that money will have been wasted and the works must be stopped.

§ MR. STOREY
What amount of money has been spent by the promoters?

§ * MR. A. J. BALFOUR
£100,000.

§ MR. STOREY
Which was borrowed from the Government?

§ * MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Yes, borrowed from the Government. But the labourers who are now engaged will be turned off, and if at any future time Parliament should decide upon resuming the construction of these works it can only be done at a great loss. We cannot leave the works half finished without squandering the money which has been spent already. I, therefore, hope that all who have the interest of Ireland at heart will support the Bill.

MR. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid)
The hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. Healy) complains of something that was done last Session in reference to the Ulster Canal Bill, but we supported him on that occasion, and I think it is rather hard that we should be subjected to his reproaches now. Originally four Drainage Bills were introduced by the Government this Session, and the Chief Secretary has done his best to slip one of them through. He put down a notice that they were to be referred to a Select Committee, but the Bann Drainage Bill was the only one submitted to the Committee, although the Committee took it for granted that the other three would be brought before them in due course. I cannot, therefore, understand wiry this attempt should be made to slip one of these Bills through the House when there is a Committee in existence to whom the whole subject was referred. The right hon. Gentleman says that if the Bill is not passed the money already expended will be wasted, but that will be the fault of the Government themselves, because they might have taken these Drainage Bills in the week which was devoted to the consideration of the Royal Grants. Under these circumstances, it is too bad for the Government to come forward at this period of the Session and attempt to throw on us the responsibility of wasting the money which has already been expended. I do not think that the money has been spent for any useful object at all. Most of the money which has been spent in the improvement of the Irish rivers has been absolutely thrown away. I see that hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on the Bann drainage works, while the total receipts are £70 a year, and it costs £1,100 a year to keep them up. I think the House will do wisely to reject this Bill altogether.

§ * MR. HAYDEN (Leitrim, S.)
So far as the drainage operations are concerned, I believe that, since the composition of the Board was changed two years ago, they have been carried out to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned. If this Bill is not passed, the money already expended will be lost, and a large number of labourers will be turned adrift. Under all the circumstances, I think it is better that we should accept the money which the Government offer to give.

§ * DR. COMMINS (Roscommon, S.)
I wish to add my testimony to the useful nature of these works. The Bill as it stands pledges the credit of the ratepayers for the money, and it is, perhaps, the first instance in which landlords and tenants have cordially united in an effort of local government. They are endeavouring to help themselves, and have already pledged their credit to the extent of £100,000, which they will have to pay whether the money is lost or not. I believe that if the grant proposed to be given by the Government is sanctioned by this House, the whole of the money already expended will prove remunerative. I am by no means in favour of subsidies, but in this case, it is to be given in support of a well meant effort to improve the condition and cultivation of the district, in which parties of all shades of political feeling have joined.

§ MR. STOREY
I should like to have your ruling, Sir, upon a point of order. Upon the Order Paper to-day, No. 21, is "Suck Drainage [Provision of Funds]: Committee thereupon." The object is to pass a Resolution for the purpose of bringing in a Bill to provide the £50,000 which is to be granted to the promoters of this Bill. What I wish to know is whether it is in order to take this Bill into consideration until that Resolution has been passed?

§ * MR. SPEAKER
That Resolution has no reference to the present Bill, and there is nothing out of order in taking a Bill into consideration.

§ MR. STOREY
Standing Order No. 81 requires that the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means shall make a Report to the House previously to the Second Reading of any private Bill by which it is intended to authorise, confirm, or alter a contract with any Department of the Government whereby any charge upon the Imperial Exchequer may be created. And any Resolution to that effect must be circulated, with the Votes, two clear days at least before being considered by a Committee of the whole House. Although this Bill does not authorise, confirm, or alter a contract, it is a private Bill, the object and aim of which is to create a charge of £50,000 upon the Imperial Exchequer. In this case there has been no Report from the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means and no Resolution.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
There is nothing in the Order to which the hon. Member refers which renders it out of order to proceed with this private Bill. The question before the House is the Suspension of the Standing Orders, so that the Bill may be considered.

§ MR. COURTNEY
The hon. Gentleman has cast a reflection upon the manner in which I have discharged my duty, but he has himself admitted that there is no contract touched upon in the Bill which required a Report. The Bill is absolutely independent and complete in itself. It is an ordinary Drainage Bill, and as such has passed through Committee, and is now awaiting consideration. I understand that, if possible, the Government propose to pass through the House another Bill, but it will be a totally distinct Bill, and will have the effect, if passed, of giving to this Drainage Board a grant of £50,000. It is quite evident that if that Bill does not pass the Drainage Board will be unable to complete their operations. I do not offer an opinion one way or the other. I am only pointing out that this Bill is complete in itself.

§ MR. STOREY
Upon the point of order I contend that the object of this Bill is to "alter" an existing arrangement with a view of throwing a pecuniary burden upon the public.

§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)
It was resolved, some years ago, that in connection with these drainage works a sum of £100,000 should be expended not by the Imperial Exchequer, but by a local levy. It would, perhaps, have been preferable that the matter should have been dealt with by a public Bill, but that being imposible a private Bill has been introduced. I do not think that the House ought at this stage to disregard the opinion of the Committee to whom the Bill has been referred. If it could be shown not only that the money already expended has been wasteful and useless, but that it would be wasteful to expend more, there would be a case against the Bill, but it has not been contended that the additional expenditure now proposed will fail to make the former expenditure effectual.

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
I hope that the House will not pass the Bill. We have been informed that the measure is wholly independent in itself. 748 So are the letters of the alphabet. J is simply a letter and so are O and B: but JOB spells job. The provisions of the Bill are to be coupled with a grant of £50,000 out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and, therefore, they cannot be looked upon as independent in themselves. We are told that this is an admirable work, but the promoters have not afforded us an opportunity of judging whether that is so or not. The promoters say that the works will be useless if this Bill is not passed. It is not a matter of much consequence whether that is so or not, because they cannot be of any permanent advantage.

§ MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)
We are told that if the Government give £50,000 the work already done will not be lost I presume that is on the principle of throwing good money after bad. It is further said that the works were badly managed by the old engineer, but that there is a new engineer now, and the works will be better carried out. But we have no guarantee, as far as I can see, that the new man will be any better than the old. All we know of the old engineer is that he failed, and there is every reason to suppose that the new man will fail also. I believe that the engineer was guilty of an act of great folly. Instead of commencing at the mouth of the sea, he commenced at the upper end of the Suck, with the certainty that the obstructions and floods would be far greater than they were before.

§ * MR. PIERCE MAHONY (Meath, N.)
Only this week I had reason to put a question to the Government in regard to money spent in connection with harbour works at Fenit, County Kerry, directly contrary to the instructions of the Lord Lieutenant, under which the ratepayers were induced to give a guarantee, and I was informed that although the Government admit the misapplication of funds in this instance, still they can suggest no remedy. Under these circumstances, until the Government can find some means of securing the proper application of money so granted I shall vote against this and every similar Bill.

§ MR. STOREY
I believe that I should be in order in moving the omission of the other Standing Orders. I do not propose to take that course, but I shall divide the House against the Motion.

§ MR. STOREY
I think that we, who have taken a consistent course in regard to these Drainage Bills, have good reason to complain of the conduct of the Government in persisting with this Bill, after having abandoned the Shannon and the Barrow Bills.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Member intend to move an Amendment?

§ MR. STOREY
I intend to move the omission from Clause 25 of the words "one hundred and fifteen," in order to insert the words "sixty-five," my object being to provide an adequate sum for the works in question, inasmuch as the Government themselves have declared that they cannot be completed under £165,000.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
It is not competent for the hon. Member to widen the scope of the Bill by increasing the amount provided for in the measure.

§ MR. STOREY
In that case it will answer my purpose just as well to move to reduce the amount.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
It will be for the House to consider whether such an Amendment as the hon. Member has announced would not be a trifling Amendment.

§ MR. STOREY
Even at the risk of subjecting myself to your censure and to the censure of the House I propose to move such an Amendment as a protest against an inadequacy of the sum provided for in the Bill. I maintain that the real object of the promoters is to get this sum of £115,000 in order that it may afterwards be supplemented by a grant of £50,000 from the Imperial Exchequer, and, as I have said, even at the risk of subjecting myself, Sir, to your censure, I do not think that that is a proper proposition to put before the House. The Chief Secretary, in moving the Second Reading of the Public Bill, distinctly stated that the works would cost £165,000, and to give borrowing powers to raise £115,000 only must be altogether abortive, and every penny of 750 the expenditure will come out of the Public Exchequer. Some day it may be repaid; but if so, it will be a very exceptional experience. Unless the Government grant £50,000 in addition the works cannot be carried out. £100,000 out of the £115,000 have already been expended, and the only effect of this Bill, without the Government grant, will be to throw away £15,000 more of the public money. In the interests of the Public Purse, and altogether careless of of the estimate which the Treasury Bench may place upon my proceeding, I intend to resist this Bill as far as I can, believing that it is vicious in itself, and that the Government are attempting by a side wind to avoid a discussion of the matter. I had no intention of trifling with the House.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
What I said was that the House would judge whether the Amendment was not a trifling Amendment. The hon. Member moved, in the first place, to increase the amount, and he now moves to diminish it. Will the hon. Member state what his precise Amendment is?

§ MR. STOREY
I move to reduce the sum from £115,000 to £100,000. I said I would do so as a matter of Parliamentary tactics, and in order to show that the financial provision in the Bill is inadequate unless it is supplemented by a free grant from Parliament. I beg to move the omission of the words "and fifteen."

§ COLONEL NOLAN
It is difficult to follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Sunderland. I thought he was going to lend us too much money; but towards the middle of his speech he changed his intention, and suggested that we should have received £100,000 instead of £115,000. I know the hon. Member says he has made the Motion as a mere matter of form; but his mere matter of form might have the effect of throwing a large number of men out of work. Of course, it is as well the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to air his eloquence. What is the use of the hon. Member being eloquent if he has not occasionally an opportunity of airing it? 751 But the hon. Gentleman has majorities of 98 and 101 against him. It is perfectly clear that the House want to pass this private Bill, and by what he is doing the hon. Gentleman can only succeed in wasting the time of the House and prolonging the discussion. He has put his case very well; with such an extremely bad case, I wonder he could do so well. I can understand the House refusing Ireland money or refusing it a particular Bill; but for a small minority to prevent the Government bringing forward a proposition which they think they ought to do in justice to Ireland, is hardly treating the weaker country fairly.

§ * SIR J. SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the interest on the public money expended on the Shannon has been paid regularly?

§ * THE FIEST LOBD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,) Strand, Westminster
If the hon. Gentleman will give notice of his question, I will endeavour to give him an answer.

§ MR. CHANCE
I have to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman upon his championship of the rights of a majority, but I think his observations would have come with better grace from a Gentleman who was in the habit of being one of the majority. I have also to congratulate him in his startling novelty. I heard with surprise the hon. and gallant Member say he was afraid the House would grant Ireland too much money. I say without fear of contradiction that that is the very first time the hon. and gallant Member has been troubled with scruples upon the point. I have never known him afraid that too much money would be granted upon these semi-charitable, and, I may say, semi-jobbing works. I do not think the Amendment is a frivolous one, and I am strengthened in that belief by the fact that when, on the Estimates, some one desires to object to the insufficiency of the amount granted, the only thing he can do is to move that the Vote be reduced.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
I must ask the hon. Gentleman to discuss the particular Amendment before the House.

§ MR. CHANCE
That was what I was attempting to do——

§ * MR. SPEAKER
Order, order!

§ MR. CHANCE
The case of the hon. Member for Sunderland is a very simple one: it is that it is unsafe to give power to borrow £ 115,000, and he sees a lesser danger in permitting £100,000 rather than £115,000 to be borrowed. I will not say more, but simply content myself by declaring that I propose to support the hon. Member for Sunderland, whether my reasons commend themselves or not to the House.

§ * DR. COMMINS
There is a consideration in favour of this Bill which seems to have been overlooked. It is evidently forgotten that all these works are embankment works. The Suck runs through peat moss, and great mischief is done by it overflowing its banks. Crops are destroyed, and disease often disseminated. In order to provide against such a state of things, the works so far have been mainly embankment works. The money spent will be lost unless the works are completed. The House is called upon to make a beneficial work complete, and prevent it from being what it will otherwise be—a source of danger. In fact, if the work already undertaken is not made complete, it will be a curse instead of a blessing to the people of the neighbourhood, as an overflow, if it should happen, would be all the worse for it. It is upon this that I shall support the Bill.

§ SIR G. CAMPBELL
In the course of a somewhat long life spent in administration I have heard a great deal of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just told us. A great deal of money has been spent in embankment works, and no good done. I object to these works being undertaken at the expense of the taxpayers.

MR. PHILIPPS
The hon. and gallant Member for Galway said the House was very anxious for this Bill. I do not know what there is to make the House anxious for the Bill, because this is the first opportunity we have had of discussing the Bill in the House, while no statement has ever been made on behalf of the Bill. It has been said that if a great deal more money is not spent on the drainage of the Suck, the money that has already been spent will be absolutely wasted. But then, as far as. I can understand, it is admitted on all sides that, to complete the drainage of the Suck, not £115,000, but £165,000 is required. If £115,000 is not enough 753 to finish the drainage of the river, I do not suppose we shall do much perceptible harm if we reduce the sum to £100,000. The hon. and gallant Member also said it is only a small minority who oppose this Bill; but let me point out that it is a growing minority. Last year one of these Drainage Bills was opposed by only three Members, but now most of the hon. Members who sit on this side go into the Lobby in opposition to this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Roscommon said that disease is generated and crops are destroyed by the overflowing of the river. But surely all these facts ought to be put before the House. Some Member of the Government should put these facts before us in an authoritative way. This Bill has been introduced in a private way, and by it we are asked to lend money for an object in favour of which not a single argument has ever been advanced by anyone in a position of authority.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Should I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in making the Motion the right hon. Member for Halifax made on July 2, 1888?

§ * MR. SPEAKER
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I have used a strong expression from the Chair. I remain of the same opinion; but I think it would perhaps be well to allow the House to take a Division upon the Amendment in the ordinary course before the House.

MR. PHILIPPS
I now beg to move the omission of Sub-section (a) of Clause 6. We have not heard a word from any Member of the Government, or from any member of the Select Committee, as to the additional value which is to be given to the lands specially benefited by this drainage scheme. If the drainage is going to improve the value of the lands specially benefited why should not these lands pay the whole expense of the scheme? Sub-section (a) charges the sum of £ 13,000, upon a certain contributory area. I do not want to be unfair. I do not want to charge the whole of the cost on the lands specially benefited, unless those lands are going to receive large benefits. Perhaps some one will tell us what was the evidence taken before the Select Committee, and at what amount the im- 754 provement of the lands specially benefited was assessed? Of course, if I receive a satisfactory reply I shall be ready to withdraw my Amendment.

§ MR. CHANCE
I think that before we divide upon this Amendment we should have some explanation as to the incidence of the charges.

§ * MR. W. H. SMITH
May I point out that these are questions which were dealt with in Committee, and that if our private Bill legislation is to have any value, we must assent to the verdict of the Committees? It is impossible for this House to go into details and the grounds upon which the conclusions of Committees were arrived at. It must be obvious to the House that if we debate here the details of every private Bill, it will be utterly impossible for the House to conduct its private legislation and any legislation whatever.

§ MR. STOREY
I think that is a fair contention to make in the case of ordinary Bills. The point we make is that we ought to have an opportunity of discussing the details of these Drainage Bills when we are called upon to give £50,000 as a free grant; but that owing to the peculiar methods adopted by the Government, we shall be prevented from discussing the details. There will simply be a clause granting £50,000 for the Suck drainage, and on that clause it will be impossible to discuss the details. We cannot permit such Bills as this to pass without opposition. As to the particular point before the Committee, our contention is similar to that we urged on the other Bill. We hold that if there are advantages accruing directly to certain lands, those lands should be required to bear the cost of the works, and that you should not go to other lands which benefit merely because they are in the locality and compel them to bear part of the expense. That is our contention, and it is a contention which, if we had been in Committee on the original measure, we should have sustained by prolonged argument. We admit the difficulty of considering these 755 points in a private Bill, but the blame does not rest with us; it rests with the Treasury Bench, and the Treasury Bench alone. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has not defended it, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were present he would not defend this particular provision. The only reason for its adoption is that they find it extremely hard to raise the money, and they try all sorts of Irish devices for raising it instead of adopting the old-fashioned Irish method—the method practised before Ireland was debauched by England—of making those who benefit pay for the benefit they receive.

§ MR. COURTNEY
This Bill came before me in the ordinary way as an unopposed Bill, and all its details were considered. It would have been in the power of hon. Members who object to the measure to oppose it, but it was not opposed and was committed like every other ordinary unopposed private Bill. The hon. Member (Mr. Storey) may stake his head as much as he likes, but he cannot alter the fact by so doing. The hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill and the Speaker's Counsel came before me to consider the details of the Bill which were dealt with in the ordinary way. With regard to the particular Amendment now before the Committee there is a distinction drawn between lands drained and benefited and land benefited though not drained; but there is no doubt that the works under the Bill will have a beneficial effect on the slopes above the actual drainage area. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head again, whether at the principle I state or at the facts to which I have referred I do not know. I should have thought the principle commends itself to everyone, and as to the facts they were proved before me. Due notice was given of the Bill by advertisement in the district interested, and if there had been any objection to the scheme opposition would have been offered; but there was no opposition. The locality at large must be taken as assenting to the Bill, in so far as they showed no dissent. It may be impossible by arguments or facts to convince those who have made up their minds not to be convinced; but, at any rate, the conduct of the Bill before me was perfectly regular.

§ SIR G. CAMPBELL
This Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman says, was treated as an unopposed Bill; consequently, there was no real discussion on it. We are told that we could have opposed it at an earlier stage, but we knew nothing about it. It was smuggled through Committee. ["No, no."]

§ MR. COURTNEY
Then everything is smuggled through Committee.

§ SIR G. CAMPBELL
Opportunity was given for private individuals to oppose the Bill if injuriously affected by it, but this measure affects the pockets of the British taxpayer, which is a very different thing. The Bill has been described as a conjunction of the letters "JOB"—job—but to my mind, it is something more than a job—it is a dodge. Advantage has been taken of a private measure to get a principle through the House which could not be got through in a public Bill. These are the circumstances under which the Bill now appears before us, and I say we are amply justified in discussing its details. We had no opportunity of knowing what was going on in the Private Bill Committee; and though I have every respect for the opinion of the Chairman of Committees, I think I am not wrong in saying that when a Bill has gone before him as an unopposed Bill it is not his function to rise——

§ * MR. SPEAKER
I fail to see how the hon. Member's observations are relevant to the question before the House, which is that of security for the repayment of advances.

§ SIR G. CAMPBELL
That question is most important. I understand from the First Lord of the Treasury that no interest on the advances in connection with the Suck drainage has been paid——

§ * MR. W. H. SMITH
No such question was ever asked. The question put was in regard to the Shannon drainage.

§ SIR G. CAMPBELL
Very well; I would now ask if any interest has been paid on the advances made for the Suck drainage. I am told the interest is still owing; and if that is so, I say it would be wrong to permit these people to incur new liabilities while they have not discharged their old ones.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,) Leeds, N.
I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question. 757 The money advanced has been advanced on the security of the property, that is to say, the property of the area drained, and I believe I am justified in saying that that security is quite ample in every respect.

§ SIR G. CAMPBELL
Has the interest due been paid?

§ MR. JACKSON
If the hon. Gentleman will give me another moment I will satisfy his curiosity. Until the works have been completed or stopped—admittedly stopped—no award can be made of the charge which will come upon the different districts; and until that takes place the interest upon the sum already advanced accumulates. I am not aware that there is anything whatever unusual in that, therefore the obstruction now being offered to this Bill—[cries of "Oh!"]—well, if hon. Gentlemen do not like that word, the delay which is taking place in the passing of the Bill will delay the repayment of the money. The way to recover the money is to pass this Bill.

§ SIR G. CAMPBELL
I beg to propose an Amendment at the end of Clause 6, which, I think, will be regarded as a very reasonable one. We all know that the interest of these advances has not been paid, but has, as it is emphatically called, been allowed to "accumulate." Under the circumstances I would move the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
The Amendment is an utterly absurd one. There can be no payment until the award is made. After a drainage work is executed the engineer goes down and awards so much for each proprietor to pay. At present the proprietors do not know how much they have to pay. They cannot, therefore, pay the interest—no matter how willing they are to do so; and meanwhile all the works will be stopped, the men 758 thrown out of work, and all the present evils increased.

MR. STOEEY
I should like to ask where is the absurdity of the Amendment? We are aware that there is to be an award, and that the individual proprietors will not know how much interest they have to pay till the award is made. But we do not ask individual proprietors to pay. We are dealing with the promoters of the Bill; and are promoters to come to the House and ask for loans and to be so impecunious as not to be able to pay the interest they owe? I ask the House to reflect on what they are doing. It is all very well to say that the interest for the last 10 years has never been apportioned; why if it is apportioned it will never be paid. We are going to carry this evil on still further. There will be no award until the works are completed; and who believes that they will be completed with this amount of money? In a year or two hence a further sum will be asked for, and we shall be told that until that is expended no interest will be paid. Sir, I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division. We stand here determined to show the country that this is a deliberate attempt in an underhand fashion to get public money; and we do not mean to be brow-beaten by any one person, or any number of persons, or to be prevented from declaring that we intend on behalf of our constituents to resist the application of this money.

§ * DR. COMMINS
The observation that this is a deliberate attempt to get public money is an observation that might be applied to every private Bill the object of which is to borrow money from the Treasury. The hon. Member says he has had no opportunity of examining the provisions of the Bill; but not a thing was done to prevent any Member examining the Bill in the fullest manner. It passed through Committee in a most ordinary way, and the subject has been before us since the early days of the Session. The hon. Member has dealt with the Bill as though it were a private speculation for the benefit of private promoters, but that is not the case, as no one of them whatever will gain a penny by it— certainly not those in charge of the Bill. It is not a Bill to promote private interests, it is a Bill to support public improvements.

§ MR. CHANCE
We have had from the Secretary to the Treasury what we usually do have from him, an extremely straightforward, candid, and modest explanation of the circumstances of this loan. He has told us frankly that nothing has been paid on previous loans entered into a considerable number of years ago.

§ MR. JACKSON
I do not know if the hon. Member understood. I said nothing had been paid because no award had been made. Until that is done it cannot be said that the money is due.

§ MR. CHANCE
I quite understand. The hon. Gentleman stated nothing had been paid; not a penny had gone back to the Treasury, because, as he said, there had been no allotment of land. But what I should like to know is this: when the original loan was made by the Treasury was that transaction complete in itself, or was it contingent upon the future advance of this £115,000 more? I have heard of such a transaction generally condemned as paying interest out of capital, and these financial arrangements seem to me to be very like that of paying the interest on old liabilities by incurring new liabilities, and so we may go on ad infinitum. The Chairman of Ways and Means has spoken of this Bill having been discussed in Committee, but the only discussion it received was from the right hon. Gentleman, two other Members of this House, and your counsel, Sir; but I do not think the House will consider that discussion in that way is altogether satisfactory before agreeing to a Bill on which is to be grounded a demand for £50,000 of public money. We have it from the Chairman of Ways and Means that this Bill was smuggled through the House.

§ MR. COURTNEY
No; I said that if this Bill was smuggled through the House, then every Bill was smuggled through the House.

§ MR. CHANCE
I take it the logical mind of the right hon. Gentleman enabled him to see the possibility of some smuggling transaction; the idea of smuggling occurred to his mind. It was smuggled through in some sense; the Government Bill was introduced as a "bonnet" or a stalking horse, while the private Bill was preparing.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is not speaking to the Question 760 before the House, the amendment of Clause 6.

§ MR. CHANCE
If the line I was pursuing is not open to me, Sir, of course I accept your ruling. I was led into it by the fact that an opposite line of illustration was taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
Not upon this Amendment.

§ MR. CHANCE
No, not on this Amendment, but the same spirit runs through all the clauses. I will only say that in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, when he alluded to the logical consequences of this, he could not show that the action of the Government in this matter has been fair and honest.

MR. PHILIPPS
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway says the Amendment is absurd because no money can be paid on previous Bills because no award has been made or can be made until the drainage works are complete. But I do not see how that follows, because any competent engineer knows what land he is going to drain, or he ought to know. If it is impossible for the engineer who drew up this drainage scheme to tell us what land he is going to drain and how much land is to be improved in value by the works, then I think the scheme ought not to be accepted. I would ask the Financial Secretary who has told us that interest has accrued on former loans, but is not due until the works are complete, to tell us what is the amount of interest that has accrued—I will not say is due—but what would be the amount due if the works were finished to-day? This is a question I think ought to be answered before we go to a Division.

§ * SIR J. SWINBURNE
I beg leave to move the adjournment of the Debate. This Bill proposes by a side-wind to provide the sum of £50,000.

§ MR. STOREY
I have another Amendment which I want to present to the critical consideration of the House. I have only got one more. It is in Clause 16. I have mentioned it privately to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I am extremely hopeful that both he and the hon. Members from Ireland will join me in asking for this change in the Bill supposing we go to a Division. Clause 16 reads:— Any increase in the value of the land upon the occupiers interest, on which any annuity is charged, which shall have resulted from the execution of Works by the Board, shall be excluded in ascertaining the value of such land for any of the purposes of the Land Act (Ireland) 1881, and any Act amending the same. The object of the clause as I want it would be this—that the increased value of the land accruing from these works should not be taken into account in order to increase the tenants' rent in future arrangements. We did this in the case of the Bann Bill, in regard to which the Chief Secretary in Committee frankly admitted that I was right in regard to my contention, and he made the alteration desired. The Amendment which I propose brings the clause of the Suck Bill exactly into the form of the clause which has been agreed to in the Bann Bill. I submit that if that form of clause be good for the Bann Bill it ought to be good for the Suck Bill. The clause as it stands in the Suck Bill does provide that within the flooded areas increase of value shall not be taken as a ground for increasing rents hereafter; but in the case of the lands which are immediately outside the flooded areas, the improvement which will accrue to them from the works to be carried out might well be taken account of in future settlements of rent to increase the rent. That would be extremely wrong, and I think we taxpayers who have to pay £50,000 to be provided out of the Public Exchequer, should ask that whatever value accrues from these drainage works should not be reckoned by the landlords in order to increase the rents which the tenants are to pay. If that be a fair contention, and 762 it was felt to be unanswerable in the other case, I hope there will be no objection to my Amendment—Clause 16, page 8, line 25, after "land," to strike out the words "upon the occupier's interest in which any annuity is charged." I beg to move the Amendment.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
This is really a very small matter, and I hope the Government will agree to it. The Amendment involved reaches the vanishing point, but if these people outside are benefited, it is only right that they should pay for it.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
The Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend is a very fair one, and I trust the Government will accede to it.

§ * DR. COMMINS
The Amendment provides for the valuation of the occupiers' interest as separate from the landlords', and simplifies the working of the measure very considerably.

§ MR. CHANCE
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. There are two classes of land which may be benefited by the change —land specially benefited without the obligation of an annuity, and land not specially benefited. As the clause is drawn, it is confined wholly to land specially benefited—that is, land upon which an annuity is charged. The land not specially benefited is within the contributory area. That land will derive some trifling advantage from the drainage works, yet it would, nevertheless, be subject to an increase of rent under this section, for the clause only excepts from increase land specially benefited. The Amendment will remove an anomaly, and will in reality do very little more.

§ MR. SEXTON
I trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, for it would be extremely hard if the outside occupiers, who will derive an extremely small advantage, should be subject to an increase of rent hereafter.

§ * MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The matter is very insignificant, and I certainly, on the part of the Government, shall not offer any opposition.

§ MR. COURTNEY
The intention of the promoters, as represented to me, was that no increase would be made in the future valuation of rents in consequence of these works.

§ MR. STOREY
I think I may appeal to the right hon. Gentleman after the evidence he has had of the objections to this particular Bill in its present shape to postpone the THIRD READING. I fear we shall be deprived of the opportunity of discussing the grant of £50,000. We have done a great deal to get the Bill through so far, and I would suggest that the Third Reading stage should be held over.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
No, no; pass the Bill.

§ MR. STOREY
If my hon. Friend presses the Bill, he will meet with no small opposition. What I suggest to the Government is to hang this Bill as it were between heaven and earth until he sees whether the House will or will not grant the £50,000, which is necessary for the purposes of the Bill.

§ * MR. W. H. SMITH
I think the hon. Gentleman has given abundant reasons why the House should now read the Bill a third time. We have been discussing the Bill for three hours; he and his friends have made their protest before the public and before the world against the Bill, and nothing more could be said even if we had a Debate on the Third Reading. It is obvious that it would be a useless expenditure of public time were we to postpone this Bill, which is to go to another place, and to be dealt with there according to the Standing Orders. The hon. Gentleman said they will not have an opportunity of discussing the Money Bill. If the Government bring in that Money Bill this Session there will be abundant opportunity for discussing it on its several stages, or if we bring it in next Session there will also be ample opportunity to discuss the application of the £50,000. Under these circumstances I think I shall carry with me the great majority of even the hon. Members who have supported the hon. Gentleman during the last three hours, in desiring that the Bill should be read a third time, and without further Debate, and that it should go to another place.

§ SIR G. CAMPBELL
Sir, the Motion before the House is not for the Third Reading, but for the suspension of the Standing Orders. In the case of this most extraordinary and dangerous Bill, I do not think the Government should ask it, and I oppose this course most strongly.

MR. PHILIPPS
The right hon. Gentleman withdrew the Bill, and we were justified in thinking that it would not be brought in again until next Session, but he has brought it in one-half a private Bill and the other half a public Bill.

§ * MR. A. J. BALFOUR
At the time I withdrew the Bill I explained the course which I intended to take.

MR. PHILIPPS
I am sorry the newspapers did not think the right hon. Gentleman's observations worthy to be reprinted. Our opposition to the Bill has at all events been justified, for out of the Amendments we proposed the Government have accepted one. I oppose this Motion, and I shall vote against it.