§ MR. M'GILLIGAN (Fermanagh, S.)I beg to ask the Secretary to Treasury whether he can state to what extent the cost of the Lough Erne drainage works exceeded the estimate, and what explanation can be offered as to this excess, and whether he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House the particulars of the full cost, amounting to £210,000; whether, in view of the fact 430 that the excess expenditure has been imposed as a tax upon the people of the district, the Treasury will institute a sworn inquiry respecting this heavy excess; whether he can state how many of the holdings which are liable for the payment of this tax have had judicial rents fixed, and how many are non-judicial holdings; and whether, taking into account all the facts of the case, the Treasury can see its way to grant some relief or abatement of the heavy charge enforced? I desire, further, to ask why no detailed account of the expenditure incurred has been published for the information of those concerned, as prescribed by the Statute?
§ SIR J. T. HIBBERTFull information with reference to the excess over the estimated expenditure has already been given in Parliamentary Paper No. 414 of 1891. With regard to the particulars of the full cost, I should explain that the Board of Works is in no way bound or required to keep or publish any detailed accounts of expenditure, but it will be seen from pages 9 and 10 of the Parliamentary Paper referred to with what elaboration the Accounts are required to be presented and examined before instalments of a loan are advanced. Under the 17th section of the Act 26 & 27 Vict., c. 88, it is the Local Drainage Board that is bound to carry out the provisions of the Commissioners Clauses Act 1847 with regard, inter alia, to the accounts to be kept by them. Neither the Treasury nor the Board of Works can interfere, but I am informed that, as a matter of fact, the accounts have been published by the Local Drainage Board. The Treasury do not consider that any useful end would be served by laying the detailed accounts on the Table or by a sworn inquiry, but I must point out that the excess expenditure is not correctly described as having been imposed as a tax upon the people of the district. Of the 1,448 holdings mentioned in my answer of the 26th instant, judicial rents had been fixed in the case of 703. The Treasury does not see its way to take action in the direction of giving relief as desired by the hon. Member.