BLACKROCK AND KINGSTOWN DRAINAGE BILL. (Hansard, 10 August 1896)

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
protested against a proposal to sanction the payment by the Commissioners to Mr. North of a sum of £500 out of the rates on account of damage done to the latter by reason of certain works carried out by the Commissioners. The hon. Member contended that Parliament ought never to have suspended the Standing Orders in order to allow a body of Commissioners who had committed an act of 367 lawlessness to make good the damage they had done out of the unfortunate ratepayers.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,) Cumberland, Penrith
moved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment. The Bill was brought in to legalise certain works which were illegal, and in consequence of the illegality of which an action was brought against the Board. The Bill was a late Bill, and the Standing Orders were all suspended in order that the Bill might progress through the House. When the Bill first came into that House it only proposed to borrow £12,000. During the course of its passage through the House that sum of £12,000 was increased by £8,000 to £20,000, and, in addition to that, another clause was inserted allowing further borrowing powers, not exceeding £10,000 for a particular purpose—namely, clearing away any damage which might arise in consequence of sewage getting into Kingstown Harbour. He ought to say that the Bill in that House was an unopposed Bill. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "By a fluke."] When the Bill reached the other House it was an opposed Measure, and there the matter was threshed out before a Committee of the other House, and this clause, allowing another £10,000 to be borrowed with the sanction of the Local Government Board in Ireland, was inserted. That was the proposal which he was now asking the House to disagree with on this broad ground:—Here was a Bill which came before the House late, in very exceptional circumstances; it started with the proposal to borrow £12,000, which was subsequently increased to £20,000, then to £30,000, and finally to £40,000. This was a very large increase to incorporate in a Bill during the course of its passage through the House. The proper course would have been for the local board to make up their minds how much money was wanted, to have allowed a margin for 368 expenses, and then to have submitted a properly-formulated scheme to the House. It would be a dangerous precedent to allow an increase of the powers of borrowing as had been the case here. The case of the promoters was practically to this effect—they did not wish to come to the House next year in order to seek further borrowing powers in respect of any additional works which might be necessary, and they thought that it would be sufficient if powers were taken to borrow with the consent of the Local Government Board in Ireland. But he found himself unable to take that view. If further sums had to be spent the proper course would be for the Drainage Board to give full and proper notice to the ratepayers of the district, and, if necessity compelled them to come to the House, they would have to come. This local authority had enjoyed a great deal more rope than any English board would have received in similar circumstances, and therefore he asked the House to disagree with the Amendment.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the vigilance he had shown in this matter. The incident showed how unprotected the Irish ratepayers were in regard to private Bills. When this Bill first came forward the Irish Members made a protest against it even on the ground of the £12,000, but there was no time to consider the petition, because the Standing Orders Committee had suspended the Standing Orders. The Drainage Commissioners had made such a mess of this business that the whole foreshore at Kingstown was practically reeking in sewage, and it was a choice whether the people should have typhoid or higher taxes. A petition was lodged against the Bill in the House of Lords, but the House of Lords turned round and said, "You are only ratepayers of Blackrock, and you are represented by Kingstown and Blackrock Local Board, who have petitioned against this Bill." But the Board actually withdrew their petitions, so that the Bill went through the House without a petition against it. It was an appalling thing that the House of Lords Standing Committee had been misled by a bogus petition, which was first lodged and then withdrawn for the purpose of defeating the rights of the ordinary ratepayers of the community. Indeed, 369 everything connected with this Bill had been bungled and badly managed. All the deviations and diversions of work of admitted illegality had been done in the interests of two peers, Lord de Vesci and Lord Longford, in order to benefit their property. Those two noble Lords ought to be made to pay for the whole affair. This Bill would probably end in another Bill, and probably in a fourth Bill.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
moved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment to the effect that all the costs, charges and expenses incidental to the passing of the Act, "including the costs, charges and expenses of the Earl of Longford and Viscount de Vesci in opposing the Bill," should be paid out of the money to be borrowed by the Board, or which it is entitled to receive from the Kingstown and Blackrock townships. He said that those two noble Lords had a petition in the other House, but they were not, strictly speaking, opponents of the Bill. Counsel held a watching brief for the petitioners, but they were in favour of the Bill and were anxious to see it go through with certain Amendments. One of the Amendments they proposed was the clause which the House had disagreed with, and it seemed to him that there was no reason why they should get their costs out of the ratepayers.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said he was sorry that the House could not ask these two noble Lords to pay for the whole thing. The proposal that these two noble Lords, who were the cause of this cost to the ratepayers by persuading the Drainage Board to divert the works in the interest of their property, should get their costs, was certainly a charming illustration of the objects of the House of Lords.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
moved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment giving authority to the "President of the Institution of Civil Engineers in London," instead of the Chairman of the Board of Works, to appoint some person in place 370 of Mr. Roberts, C.E., to determine and award the proportion of expenses to be borne by the townships, in the event of Mr. Roberts dying or becoming disabled from discharging his duty. They had enough of London already, and he did not see why they should agree to this proposal that the President of the Institute of Civil Engineers in London should be the determining authority in this matter.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said that this was, after all, a trifling matter, and therefore he should not oppose the Motion of the hon. Member.