HC Deb 23 February 1891 vol 350 cc1364-5
MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is it a fact that a man named Montgomery obtained a loan from the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries for £170 two or three years ago on giving good security for its repayment by instalments extending over some years, the last not falling due till 1895; that he purchased a fishing vessel with the money; that he repaid the instalments of his loan as they fell due up to the present; that neither the Fishery Inspectors nor the Board of Works held any mortgage or lien of any kind on the vessel; that he lately sold it to a fisherman named M'Carthy, from the County Cork, to whom the Inspectors of Fisheries had agreed to make a loan of £100, and for repayment of which M'Carthy had, with two sureties approved by the Inspectors of Fisheries, signed promissory notes for the amount to the Board of Works; that he, Montgomery, had consented to allow this. £100, which otherwise would have had to be paid to him for the vessel, to be retained as a set-off or part payment of the balance falling due on foot of the loan made to him, though the last instalment would not fall due till 1895; that all the requirements and conditions imposed on M'Carthy had been complied with by him; and that subsequently, after the loan had been made and he had purchased his vessel from Montgomery, the completion of the transaction was refused unless Montgomery would pay up the balance of his loan, the last instalment of which would not fall due till 1895; and, if these allegations are correct, what authority had the Inspectors of Fisheries, or the Board of Works, for so acting?


The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries report that the facts are substantially as stated in the question. The security for the loan made to Montgomery consisted of promissory notes executed by him and his sureties jointly. The Inspectors were of opinion that to permit Montgomery to part with the boat would weaken his solvency, and would be a just cause of complaint on the part of the sureties in the event of its being ultimately necessary to take proceedings against them should there be default. Montgomery received from M'Carthy a sum of £35 on account, with which he could have discharged his outstanding debt of £25 11s. 8d. in respect to the loan. It was further considered inadvisable that the Trust Fund should be used for the purpose of making continuous loans on the same vessel. In these circumstances, Montgomery was called upon to discharge his liability before parting with the vessel.