HC Deb 25 March 1889 vol 334 cc722-3

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, on the 12th day of December, 1885, the Secretary of the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commission wrote to Mr. John Warnock, solicitor for the promoters of the Ballyhalbert Pier, to the following effect— That the Commissioners were now prepared to recommend a free grant of three-fourths of the sum of £7,000, which the work is estimated to cost, on the remaining one-fourth being provided from local sources"; and that the said one-fourth was so provided, £1,400 being presented by the Grand Jury of the County of Down on the county at large, and £350 being locally subscribed and lodged with the Board of Works; whether the grant of £7,000 was thereupon sanctioned by the Treasury; whether the amount of the contract now completed was £5,700; whether representations have been made by those best acquainted with the locality that the work as executed is insufficient to afford the accommodation intended and required, and that the expenditure of the balance of £1,300 on works which have been suggested would remedy this defect; and, whether, in fulfilment of the assurance given on 14th March that Bally-halbert Pier should not suffer in consequence of works elsewhere having proved more expensive than was anticipated, he is prepared to order this expenditure during the coming summer; or should that be out of his power, whether he will direct the sum of £325, one-fourth of the unexpended surplus, to be refunded to the Grand Jury of the County of Down and the subscribers in proportion to their original contributions?


The facts are as stated in the first three paragraphs of the question. I am advised that it is doubtful whether further expenditure would be justified by results. I admit that there are special circumstances in this case, and some apparent hardship on the locality, and I am considering whether any relief can be afforded without raising a dangerous precedent.