HC Deb 15 August 1901 vol 99 cc1123-4

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

*MR. CULLINAN

said he opposed the Third Reading of the Bill because, while assistance was given to the landlords in Ireland, none whatever was given to the evicted tenants. Those were most glaring cases, and he was sorry that they had not had a proper opportunity for discussing them.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)

said the point raised by the hon. Member was that, owing to the defaults of the tenants, the sums referred to had become irrecoverable. The hon. Member said that they should be recovered from the landlord, as they went to improve Ids property; but under the law they could not be recovered from the landlord. They could not put a charge on the landlord for money borrowed by his tenant without his consent. If the landlord's consent were made necessary, it might be impossible for the tenant to obtain the loan in many eases.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said it was now more than ten years since the first of these Public Works Loans Bills had been introduced, and he then appealed to the Government to make the landlord liable. Lord Goschen was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the matter was debated at length, but the Government declined to take his advice, with the result that where a loan was granted to a tenant who was subsequently evicted the landlord was allowed to get the benefit of it, with the connivance of the Government.

MR. TULLY

said he wished to support the remarks of his hon. friend. He observed that £23,352 was to be wiped off for one union in England, whereas only a few hundred pounds were being wiped off in connection with Irish unions. He certainly thought the Secretary to the Treasury should give some information as to the large sums that were to be wiped off in England, compared with which the sums to be wiped off in Ireland were a mere bagatelle.

MR. SHEEHAN (Cork, Mid.)

said he wished to know if loans were to be advanced to emergency men without sufficient security, and not advanced to tenants who had proper security.