§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £50,000 a year for four years, reserved out of the Irish Development Grant Fund for expenses connected with the loan for the purposes of the Irish Land Act, of last year, will be available to meet the discount at which the stock may have to be floated; and, if not, will he explain exactly to what expenses that sum is to be devoted.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe four sums of £50,000 to which the hon. Member refers will not be available for meeting the charges occasioned by the issue of stock at a discount. It is provided by the Act that these charges are to be paid out of the Guarantee Fund. The sums in question are intended to form a working balance of the Land Purchase Fund to meet temporarily the charges upon that fund which may arise before moneys applicable to them are received. For instance, dividends on the Stock will accrue for payment before annuities are in hand for paying them; and cash will be needed out of which immediate advances can be made in anticipation of issues of Stock.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDDo I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the discounts will have to be paid out of the Guarantee Fund?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINYes.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDThis £50,000 is part of the Guarantee Fund. Does it mean that no part of the £50,000 is to be set aside year by year for four years to meet the expenses of the flotation, and that the discounts at which the stock may be issued will have to be paid out of the Development Grant?
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)Do I understand that the £50,000 set aside will not be sufficient to meet the expenses?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINNo Sir. I had better repeat the first sentence of my answer—
The four sums of £50,000 to which the hon. Member refers will not be available for meeting the charges occasioned by the issue of stock at a discount. It is provided by the Act that those charges are to be paid out of the Guarantee Fund.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDThis is a matter of vital importance. It was clearly understood by all of us that the £50,000 were to be set aside for the cost of flotation, including the discounts. Are we to understand now that the cost of discounts is to be paid out of the Development Grant in addition to the sum taken from that fund for the cost of flotation?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI quite agree that the matter is an important one. Possibly if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the subject he will be good enough to put a further Question on the Paper, because I ought not to speak without having time for consideration. But the four sums of £50,000 were not intended on either side of the House to pay the cost of flotation.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDIt was so understood by us.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLYes.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWe may possibly be using language in a different sense. I should like any further Question put down.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDIf the right hon. Gentleman is right every one of us 1239 who supported the Bill were under an entire misapprehension. I will certainly put down a further Question.