HC Deb 23 July 1900 vol 86 cc979-84

Considered in Committee

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—

Amendment proposed— In Clause 1, page 1, line 13, to leave out 'Edward Howley Palmer, Esquire.' "—(Mr. Hanbury.)

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked why this respectable gentleman's name was being omitted.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

said that some time ago Mr. Palmer had asked to be relieved of his duties.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, to leave out 'Lord Iveagh.'"— (Mr. Hanbury.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, after line 2, to insert' The Honourable James Henry Cecil Hozier, M.P.'" —(Mr. Hanbury.)

DR. TANNER (Cork Co, Mid)

said he desired to know why Mr. Hozier's name was going to be inserted. Was everything going to be made a family matter? He had nothing to say against Scotchmen, but he wanted to know how it came to pass that Mr. Hozier was chosen for this position? Was it a remunerative position or was it not, and was Mr. Hozier a member of the Prime Minister's family or was he not?

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In line 2, after the last-mentioned name to insert 'David Lloyd-George, Esq., M.P.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:—

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

said he wished to know why the amount had been reduced from seven millions to six millions, and further, whether it was not a fact that of the six millions four and a half millions had been already pledged to various local bodies for the purpose of public works.

THIS FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,) Preston

said that the grant of seven millions last year was a very special one indeed, and was very considerably larger than the average. In 1896 it was only one and a half millions; in 1897, two and a half millions; in 1898, five millions; and therefore he thought that six millions now was a very fair average.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

said that as there was now a Welsh representative on the Board he was sure that they would get justice, and he therefore would not move his Amendment.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:—

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked why it was that gentlemen having large property should be allowed to escape these loans. There was a Mr. Lambert, who had been advanced £500 and had only repaid £82. It was the invariable practice of the Government in Ireland, while pressing small tenant farmers for every shilling, to let the landlords off. Here was a man whose name was perfectly familiar to them, who was let off of a sum of over £400, whereas a tenant in Ireland would not be lot off 4d. He was first inducted into the mystery of public loans by the First Lord of the Treasury, who, he remembered, in 1881 attacked Mr. Gladstone for his iniquities in connection with them. The right hon. Gentleman then made a great impression on him. He took a stand now on the case of Mr. Lambert, and he wished to know why he was to get off paying over £400.

MR. HANBURY

said that, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt knew very well, Mr. Lambert was not getting off at all, because the debt remained, although it was wiped off' the assets of the Local Loans Fund, which had to be done, of course, in the interests of the fund itself. The Treasury did not forego any claim to recover the money so far as it was recoverable. He was bound to say that the advance to Mr. Lambert was rather a foolish advance. There were two advances —one in 1874, and the other in 1881.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The Tory Government was in for the first lot.

MR. HANBURY

said whatever Government was in did not now matter. The fact was that there was a large head rent, and sufficient regard had not been paid to that when making the advances. The payment of the head rent fell into arrear, and in order to save eviction and loss a salvage creditor paid off the arrears of the head rent and became, therefore, entitled to first priority over the other creditors. Ultimately the land was sold for £800, and nearly £600 went to satisfy the claims of the salvage creditor.

MR. CALDWELL

said that the Secretary of the Treasury had stated that the amount of the advances might be eventually recovered, but according to another statement of his the advances were irrecoverable. In this case the money was lent for the purpose of erecting buildings and putting down subsoil. Who was to get the benefit of it? He supposed it would be the head-rent man. It was not fair that money should be spent in this way on property which practically belonged to another man, and out of which the Government would never get a single penny. This case only illustrated the principle on which these loans were given in Ireland.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that J. Fitzgerald received a loan of £3,000 for the purchase of his holding, which, of course, was said to be the value of the asset. The Government now wiped off £2,800. In other words, the holding on which they advanced £3,000 was not worth anything like that amount. They heard a great deal when the Home Rule proposal was before the country about the iniquity of Mr. Gladstone proposing to lend money for the purchase of Irish land. They were told it would be practically irrecoverable. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham made a great deal of the plea that the money would be irrecoverable, but here J. Fitzgerald got £3,000, and walked off with £2,800, £200 being the value of the land.

MR. HANBURY

said this was one of the unfortunate cases in which a purchase took place from one relation to another. A certain proportion of the money would be recoverable. The value of the land had deteriorated very much from the condition in which it was when sold. He admitted that this was a case where the sum lent was larger than it ought to have been.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said they had protested over and over again against the system of fathers transferring land to sons, and mothers transferring land to daughters, and borrowing money from the State under the pretence that this was land purchase. They were entitled to know the name of the Commissioner. It was very regrettable that the money should be wasted, but those who were testifying year after year against this extravagant system in Ireland were not listened to.

MR. HANBURY

said the rent of the land was £150. He did not know the name of the Commissioner, but he would ascertain for the hon. and learned Member.

MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL (Stockton)

said that, the restitution fund having been abolished, they ought to know out of what fund the Government proposed to pay the sums which they intended to wipe off this year.

MR. HANBURY

said that what happened was that the loss to the Local Loans Fund was made good by a Vote of Parliament, and if any sums were subsequently recovered they were paid into the Exchequer.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said it was understood that a fifth was always retained by the Government in such cases. The advance in this case for was £3,000, of which a fifth would be £600. Therefore only £2,400 should have been lost, whereas £2,800 was actually lost. Why was not a fifth retained? He did not for a moment suggest that the Secretary to the Treasury was in any degree responsible, and doubtless the right hon. Gentleman had not the smallest sympathy with what he was defending. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should supply the date of the loan, the name of the Commissioner making the advance, the name of the valuer, and the Poor-law valuation. If the Land Commissioners knew that such details would lie set out in a Public Loans Bill they would be much more careful.

MR. HANBURY

said he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman. He thought more light should be thrown on these transactions, and he would undertake that in future the fullest information should be given. He had already given the name of the valuer, and would endeavour to obtain the name of the Commissioner. As for the fifth which had been retained, it was all exhausted in paying instalments.

DR. TANNER

said he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who J. Fitzgerald was? He happened to know East Cork very well, and there was only one James Fitzgerald there as far as he knew. He was an agent and had grabbed a certain number of farms in the district. He did not want to put it in a painful way, but that James Fitzgerald had a brother, an hon. Baronet sitting in the House for an English constituency. In such matters the process of identification ought to be gone through thoroughly. If he were the gentleman he imagined, he should not have any difficulty in getting a loan, because he was agent to Lord Middleton.

MR. CALDWELL

said he thought the Secretary to the Treasury would admit that it was quite proper that attention should be called to the matter, and that it should be gone into in more detail than usual. When money was being advanced on property in Ireland it should be done on business lines. The loan for £2,000, which the Committee was discussing, was only an illustration of how a bogus sale could be got up. The sale in that case was made by a mother to a son, and at that time it was represented that the rent of the property was £150. In 1899, however, only £58 could be got for it. In such cases the parties walked off with the money, leaving the Treasury to bear the loss. He thought they might reasonably have a statement showing for several years past the names and addresses of persons whose loans had been written off, and how much had been recovered. It was only right that the persons who were responsible for advancing money in Ireland should be impressed with the fact that the House of Commons would see that proper security was got for the advance, and that if a loss were incurred it would be enquired into. It was only in that way that the matter could be kept on a business principle, and he hoped after what had taken place that the Treasury would see the necessity for issuing special instructions.

Clause agreed to.

Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.