HC Deb 10 July 1908 vol 192 cc275-307

Order read, for Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee).

MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.)

said he proposed to move that the Bill be recommitted. Yesterday they had presented to them a new edition of the Treasury clauses of the Bill, and he thought that that was ample reason why the Bill, with the principle of which he was in entire accord, should be recommitted. In their first sitting in Committee there was no representative of the Treasury present, although the financial clauses of the Bill were by far the most important. They were asked by the Chairman to defer their consideration of the financial clauses, and in spite of protests they dealt with the other clauses. At their subsequent meeting, they had a Treasury representative present, and they then had entirely new financial clauses presented to them, which were dealt with with very little explanation. The Bill went through in that shape, and now they found on the Paper the entirely new clauses submitted by the Treasury. That was quite without precedent, for this was the third edition of the clauses. While in the original Bill the clauses provided for the reception in aid of this most pressing work in Ireland of some- thing like £50,000 per annum, the Treasury now proposed a sum of something like £4,500 per annum, notwithstanding the fact that the local authorities who were dealing with the problem even to a limited extent were annually losing £16,000. He confessed, as one who wished to see rehousing proceeded with rapidly in Ireland, that with the miserably inadequate financial proposals of the Treasury the Bill if passed would only have the effect of preventing a really proper and adequate measure being placed on the Statute - book for a great many years to come. He treated this matter as entirely outside politics. He earnestly desired to see an adequate Bill passed by the House, but it was absolutely impossible for this Bill to be anything but a dead letter if it became law.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

seconded. It seemed to him, as an ordinary private Member, that the Bill was full of complicated clauses. Only yesterday a new sheet of Amendments by the Attorney-General and the Treasury was put into their hands, and no one had had time to understand their meaning. The new clause to be moved appeared to treat with the funds of other people in a light and airy manner. It seemed to go into the funds of the Lord Chancellor in the Supreme Court of Ireland, of the Accountant General, and of the Local Government Board. Surely that was a matter for the Committee and not for the whole House to discuss. He thought something should be done for the better housing of the working classes in Ireland, but that was all the more reason why they should take care, in promoting legislation with that object, that they had these details thoroughly thrashed out in Committee.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be recommitted lo the former Committee."—(Mr. Hugh Barrie.)

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

said he took it for granted that the Government would not listen to the proposal, and he was sure the House would not consider it for a single moment. The intentions of the mover and seconder of the Amendment seemed to be different. If he properly understood the hon. Gentleman who moved it, he was hostile to the Bill. The seconder of the Amendment, however, only seconded it because apparently he was of opinion that, if carried, the motion would not jeopardise the Bill. Every hon. Member knew very well, however, that if the Amendment was carried it would jeopardise the Bill; it would mean the destruction of the Bill. There was only one point he would like to press upon the notice of hon. Members. The argument in favour of the Amendment was that there appeared on the Paper entirely new proposals by the Government of a complicated nature, but that was an entire misrepresentation of the fact. The Bill when it was introduced contained financial proposals under three heads. Two of these sets of financial proposals were objected to by the Treasury, and they were given up by the promoters of the Bill. They were given up reluctantly, but in order to get the Bill through. The third financial proposal which was in the Bill was fully discussed during the whole of one Friday, and it ended in the Second Reading being passed without a single dissentient voice. That remaining financial proposal was the proposal now in the Bill. It was discussed in the Committee, it was agreed to by the Treasury, and a clause was put into the Bill in Committee to carry that agreement out. Since then the Treasury had round that there were technical difficulties in the wording of the clause, and they proposed to give them now words. There was nothing in the new clause that was really new; it was simply to give effect to the proposal discussed in. the Committee and on the Second Reading, and therefore there was no earthly reason for recommitting the Bill. The Bill would effect a valuable consolidation of the law in Ireland and a valuable cheapening of procedure, and would establish for the first time a housing fund for aiding local authorities in carrying out housing schemes.

THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,) Liverpool Exchange

said they regarded the Bill as most valuable and were most anxious that it should be passed into law. They were not at all agreed with the view of the hon. Gentleman that the passing of this Bill would in any way bar subsequent legislation. The housing of the working classes in Ireland was a matter which certainly deserved more consideration than almost any other subject. If the Bill was recommitted, it would certainly imperil its passage. There were so many other Bills and such a lot of work upstairs that to recommit it would certainly imperil its passage. The objects of the new clause and the new Amendments were not controversial at all. Most of them were merely drafting Amendments, and a good many of them were matters which all parties would agree were for the improvement of the Bill. They were all agreed on the objects they had at heart, and the only difference they might have was as to slight details of the machinery for carrying out those objects, which were to devote the funds which the Treasury had placed at their disposal for the necessary purpose of improving the housing of the working classes in Ireland.

MR. BARRIE

intimated that he would withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill, as amended, considered.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,) Bristol, E.

in moving a new clause (Application of dormant portion of Irish Suitors' Fund to purposes of Housing Acts) said that the hon. Member for Waterford had dealt accurately and very fully with the reasons which had compelled him to place these fresh words on the Paper. In the discussion upstairs upon the financial proposals, it was found, after discussion, that the guarantee of the Consolidated Fund which stood behind the sum of £100,000 had not extended to the sum of £80,000 cash which was to be part and parcel of the sums transferred from the Dormant Suitors' Fund for the purposes of this Bill, and accordingly the Lord Chancellor told them that he was unable to part with that money until the guarantee on which he gave his consent had been put in proper form. When that matter became plain, it was necessary not only to clear up that particular point, but also to consolidate Clauses 4 and 5 into the present clause in order to get rid of any ambiguity of language and to simplify the provisions of the Bill. He, therefore, moved the words standing in his name. It might, perhaps, be convenient to point out that by these new words, the Local Government Board was substituted for the Commissioners of Public Works as the authority which would dispose of the funds. Under the Bill as introduced by the hon. Gentleman opposite, the fund could be more conveniently dealt with by the Commissioners of Public Works, but, as the matter now stood, the more convenient authority would be the Local Government Board in Ireland, who would be the sole executive authority to deal with the whole of the Bill. He therefore proposed to make the change in the manner indicated in the clause.

New clause— (1) The Bank of Ireland shall, out of the fund of suitors in the Supreme Court, upon the order of the Lord Chancellor, pay to the Local Government Board, for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, the sum of eighty thousand pounds. (2) The Accountant-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland shall, on the order of the Lord Chancellor, out of the new Two and a half Per Centum Consolidated Stock forming portion of the fund of suitors in the Supreme Court and standing to the credit' of the general ledger account kept, by him for dormant balances, and the unclaimed order and residue account, Land Judge's Court, transfer to the Local Government Board, for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, stock to the nominal value of one hundred thousand pounds. (3) The Local Government Board shall, on such transfer as aforesaid being made, forthwith sell such stock so transferred and invest the proceeds thereof, together with the said sum of eighty thousand pounds, in any securities in which trustees are authorised by the Irish Land Act, 1903, to invest trust moneys, and the annual income of such investments shall be applied in the manner directed by this Act. (4) If it happens that the moneys or securities standing to the credit of the account of the suitors in the Supreme Court are at any time reduced to a sum not sufficient to meet the demands upon them or cither of them, then the Treasury, so as to afford a complete indemnity to the suitors for any loss which they might sustain by reason of the passing of this Act, shall advance out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof such sum as they may think necessary, not exceeding in the whole the sum of eighty thousand pounds and the amount which would be realised at the date of such demands as aforesaid by the sale of the securities transferred in pursuance of this section, together with the dividends that would have accrued thereon if such securities had not been so transferred "—(Mr. Charles Hobhouse.) Brought up, and read the first and second time."

MR. BARRIE moved to leave out the words "and the unclaimed order and residue account, Land Judge's Court." He was sure the hon. Member for Waterford had no desire to mislead the House, but he had fallen into an error when he assured the House that this new clause in no way differed from the clause as proposed in the first instance. He thought the House would readily grasp two essential differences. Roth of them went to prove the undue haste with which the Bill had been passed through Committee. The first alteration, as pointed out by the representative of the Treasury, was that the Local Government Board would have charge where the Commissioners of Public Works were to have had it. He thought that was an improvement. In the history of the Bill they had had various financial proposals. Several of them had already been vetoed by the Treasury; but they found that now, on the last opportunity they had of reviewing the proceedings, an entirely new proposal had been inserted. He ventured to think it was unheard of that the House should be asked to consider a revision of this kind without there being at least an opportunity of consulting the Judges whom it affected. It was for that reason, and as a protest against the course taken by the Treasury, that he moved his Amendment.

SIR F. BAXBURY (City of London)

seconded. He could not conceive what right the Attorney-General had to put the words in at all. They had, he understood, handed over a particular sum under a guarantee; and if the Treasury desired to guarantee any more money, he thought they ought, to do so in a straightforward manner. He failed to see why the words were put in, and he thought his hon. friend's arguments were good.

Amendment proposed— In lines 9 and 10 to leave out the words 'and the unclaimed order and residue account, Land Judge's Court.'"—(Mr. Barrie.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. CLANCY

said the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment was under an entire, misapprehension if he thought there was anything new in the words which he proposed should be left out. The original proposal was to take a certain sum of money from the dormant portion of the Suitors' Fund in Ireland. That covered various sums in various Courts: the Court of Mr. Justice Barton, the Court of the Master of the Rolls, and the Land Judge's Court; and the object of the words to which the hon. Member had taken exception was to make it clear what funds were being touched. With regard to the statement of the hon. Member that the Judges ought to have been consulted, he thought he would not be breaking any confidence if he said they had been consulted.

MR. BARRIE

This is the first we have heard of it.

MR. CLANCY

said the Judges considered so much of the fund under their control as they thought would never be called upon should be released, and had stipulated that in the improbable event of any of those monies being called upon the Treasury should, as in many other cases, guarantee their repayment. A similar clause occurred in the Act which enabled the Courts of Justice in the Strand to be built, and a similar guarantee was given in 1894, when £15,000 wan taken to build a new Law Library in Dublin. The only reason for the new clause was that the guarantee which was in the original Bill, and which everybody agreed should be in the Bill, had been accidentally omitted. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Amendment. He had expressed himself in favour of the Bill.

MR. HOBHOUSE

said that perhaps he might in half a dozen words explain away the difficulty of the hon. Member. The words he proposed to leave out did not import anything new, cither in form or substance, into the Bill, as approved by the Treasury. As a matter of fact, the unclaimed order and residue ac- count of the Land Judge's Court was part of those dormant funds which were to supply both the Consols and cash for the purposes of the Acts; and it would be impossible to allot that cash which was to be the working balance unless they were to take part of the unclaimed order and residue account. If the hon. Gentleman were to succeed in getting the words struck out of the clause, he would only defeat the object, of which he professed to be an ardent supporter. With regard to the liability of the suitors under the residue account, their claims were in no way prejudiced by the Bill, because they, like other people interested in the Dormant Suitors' Fund, were completely protected by the guarantee of the Consolidated Fund. He therefore hoped the House would not accept the Amendment.

MR. GORDON

said that the words which it was proposed to leave out related to part of the £100,000 mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's proposal. There were two sums, one of £80,000 which was to come out of the Suitors' Fund, and another of £100,000 which was to come from, amongst other sources, the unclaimed order and residue account. The fourth subsection provided an indemnity in respect of the £80,000, but did it provide an indemnity in respect of the other sum?

MR. HOBHOUSE

said that was precisely why the fresh words had been introduced in the clause, which had been very carefully drafted and was in entire agreement with the wishes of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. It was to make it perfectly manifest to the House that there was the double guarantee.

MR. BARRIE

said that having obtained information previously lacking, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. CHERRY

said the Government had a new clause standing in his name, and he would explain very briefly what it was. It was really in substitution of Clause 5, providing for the distribution of the fund the Treasury placed at the disposal of the Irish authorities for the purposes of the Act. There was a little difficulty about the distribution owing to the uncertainty of the amount, and they had been obliged to alter the original proposals in the Bill, because it was found that a great portion of the funds which it was thought would be available would not be available. It provided for the payment of 25 per cent, of the annuity in each case. It was quite clear that could not be carried out, and another clause was inserted rather rapidly in Committee providing for the distribution of the money residue amongst the different local bodies in proportion to the amount of money due by them in respect of advances and also in respect of money spent by them for the purposes of the Act. Any local body which chose to spend money for the purposes of the Act would get a grant out of the funds exactly in proportion to the amount it spent. He need not trouble to read through the whole of the clause, but they might take it from him that it carried out that intention.

New Clause:— (1) The investments directed by Section 4 of this Act shall form and in this Act are referred to as 'the Irish Housing Fund.' (2) For the purpose of allocating and paying the annual income of the Irish Housing Fund the Local Government Board shall, in every local financial year, ascertain the amount which, as at the beginning of that year, each local authority is liable to pay in the course of that year for interest and sinking fund in respect of moneys borrowed by the authority after the passing of this Act for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts (in this section referred to as 'the annual housing charge') and shall allocate and pay the said income received during that year to and amongst the local authorities in manner following, that is to say, to each local authority liable in respect of an annual housing charge as aforesaid a sum that will bear the same proportion to the annual housing charge of that authority as the total amount of the said income so received as aforesaid will bear to the total amount of the annual housing charges of all local authorities in Ireland, provided that the sum so payable to any local authority shall not exceed the amount of the annual housing charge of the authority. (3) Any income of the Irish Housing Fund received prior to the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as income received during the local financial year, which begins on that day. (4) Any sum payable to a local authority under this section shall be applied in or towards payment of the annual housing charge of the local authority, (5) So much of the annual income of the Irish Housing Fund as is not distributed under the foregoing provisions of this section shall be added to the principal of the said fund and invested accordingly."—(Mr. Cherry.)

Brought up, and read the first and second time.

MR. CLANCY

said he thought it necessary to make a slight Amendment in this clause which was intended to make a distribution amongst the local authorities in proportion to the money they advanced. The clause as it stood contemplated only one system of repayment, namely, the annuity system. But there was another system of repayment which had been very often adopted in the past, and might be adopted in the future, namely, payment by instalments, the interest calculated on the money due becoming less and less according as the instalments were paid, and the interest being paid on the reduced sum. If any authority chose to pay in that way instead of by annuity, it could not get any advantage from this fund as the clause stood. As an Amendment he proposed to leave out the words "for interest and sinking fund" in order to insert a few lines further on after the word "Acts," the words "and repayable either by annuity or by instalment." The clause would then read: "As at the beginning of that year, each local authority is liable to pay in the course of that year in respect of moneys borrowed by the authorities after the passing of this Act for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts and repayable either by annuity or by instalments," and so on. The intention of that was that there should be absolute fairplay among local authorities. If authorities in Ireland chose to repay by annuity then this clause was perfect; he believed that it would suit its purpose; but if any local authority chose the other system of repayment by instalments, then this clause, as it stood, would deprive them of the benefit of this Housing Fund.

MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words 'for interest and sinking fund.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. CHERRY

said he had no objection to the Amendment, though he preferred his own drafting; but if the hon. Gentleman wished to have the alteration, though the effect was the same, he did not refuse it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In line 7, after the word 'Acts,' to insert the words 'and repayable either by annuity or by instalment.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

MR. CHERRY moved a new clause in substitution for Clause 15. The clause as it stood in the Bill practically made it compulsory on town commissioners to adopt Part II. of the Act of 1890, which dealt with the demolition of unhealthy dwellings and the substitution of healthy and suitable ones. He thought that the local town commissioners should have this power, but at the same time it should be optional whether or not they should adopt the powers given by Part II. There might be cases of small towns where a great number of these unhealthy dwellings existed, and where the people were so heavily rated, and the town had such a large burden of debt that it would not be desirable that the local authority should undertake the demolition of these dwellings. In that case they would not adopt Part II. of the Act of 1890, and they would be able to improve the housing of the working classes when they so desired.

New clause— Any town commissioners, within the meaning of Section 99 of the Act of 1890, may, if they think fit, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, adopt Part II. of the Act of 1890 in like manner as they may adopt Part III. of that Act, and any references in Section 99 or in Section 100 of the Act of 1890 to Part III. of that Act shall, for the purposes of this section, be construed as references to Part II. of that Act."—(Mr. Cherry.)

Brought up, and read the first and second time.

*MR. SPEAKER

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dublin County cannot be moved on the Report stage, as it proposes to increase the rates.

MR. CLANCY

said he did not propose to submit the Amendment, but if the Government assured him that it was doubtful whether the rates could be increased or not as the clause now stood, he would ask them to make the Amendment in the House of Lords.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. CLANCY

moved a new clause dealing with the rates of interest on loans.' The clause was copied from the Bill of the present session, moved by the President of the Local Government Board to deal with the housing of the working classes in England. It provided that the current rate authorised for loans out of the Local Loans Fund should be the rate whatever the time might be for which the loan was required. That was the substance of the clause. He had followed the exact words of the clause in the Bill of the President of the Local Government Board, and he did not think that he need argue the matter at all.

MR. FLAVIN

seconded.

New clause— Where a loan is made by the Public Works Commissioners to a local authority for any purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts as defined by this Act: (a) The loan shall be made at the minimum rate of interest for the time being allowed for loans out of the Local Loans Fund; and (b) as between loans for different periods the longer duration of the loan shall not be taken as a reason for Axing a higher rate of interest.'"—(Mr. Clancy.) Brought up and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be lead a second time."

MR. HOBHOUSE

said he was disposed to accept the clause, though he had one or two drafting Amendments to propose.

MR. SPEAKER

The clause has not been read a second time yet.

SIR F. BANBURY

said he was sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman was going to accept the Amendment, because he thought that there was a great deal of difference between advancing a loan for two or three years and a loan for seventy or eighty years. It was not a sound financial argument that because a person was charged 3 per cent. for a loan for six months therefore he should be charged 3 per cent. for eighty years. That was the extraordinary proposal which the hon. Gentleman put before them. The hon. Member said that the same proposal was in the Bill brought in by the President of the Local Government Board, but that did not alter the case, because the right hon. Gentleman was not an absolute authority. He would not dream of taking his opinion on a financial question. He certainly thought it was a wrong clause, and he hoped his hon. friends from Ireland would divide against it. It was a very unfortunate precedent to introduce that the rate of interest on a loan for six months should be the same as on a loan for eighty years.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

hoped the hon. Baronet would not persist in his objection to the clause. It was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee which inquired into the subject some time ago. Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland above the gangway would agree that the most important point of all in connection with housing in Ireland was that they should, if possible, be able to get the money at a reduced rate of interest. At present the cost to the local authorities was prohibitive, and unless it was reduced the Bill would be of very little use. He regarded this as one of the most important proposals in the Bill. He gave Gentlemen above the gangway full credit for trying to promote housing in Ireland, and as this was a portion of the proposal of the President of the Local Government Board in his Bill, and as it was accepted by the Government, he sincerely trusted the hon. Baronet would waive his objection and let them be unanimous on this as they had been on every point in connection with the Bill.

MR. GORDON

said he did not pretend to a sound knowledge of finance and he did not offer any opinion of his own against that of the hon. Baronet, but he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that in connection with this matter of getting money for the housing of the working classes the most essential thing was to try to get it on as reasonable terms as it could be got from the Treasury, and if the Treasury was willing to concede it at the lowest rate he did not think anyone in the House ought to object. He asked his hon. friend to withdraw his objection.

MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

said the Amendment might raise the question whether the loans were to be made on eleemosynary terms or not. If they were, the practice ought to be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom. Before they could make up their minds whether this was really the proposal of the clause, perhaps the hon. Gentlemen who represented the Treasury could tell them how the Public Works Commissioners secured that their practice as regarded the minimum rate for loans secured the Treasury against loss. Part of that question would he whether loans for very long periods, such as eighty years, should be treated on different terms, as regarded interest, from loans for shorter periods. It might well be that for that purpose the Public Works Commissioners might have different scales of rates applying to two kinds of loans. The House was entitled to some explanation on that point.

MR. HOBHOUSE

said the purpose of the new clause was to bring the practice in relation to loans into line with that which, if the Housing and Town Planning Bill passed, would be the rule in regard to great Britain. The practice of the Treasury had undoubtedly been in the past to differentiate between loans for longer and shorter periods. The proposal here was to bring them into line so as to make the rate of interest pay able for the loan the same whether for a short or a long period. As a matter of fact the arrangement had been come to between the Treasury and the Local Government Board that the period for which the loan upon the identical rate of interest should run should not exceed, save in the case of the purchase of land, sixty years. That would secure the Treasury against any possible loss.

MR. BARBIE

said he had listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's explanation. The Government was making a most valuable concession, and he congratulated the hon. Member in charge of the Bill. It would be of the greatest value to them all over the country to have a minimum rate and a maximum period for repayment.

Amendments agreed to— In line 1, to leave out the words 'Public Works Commissioners' and to insert the words 'Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.) In line 3, to omit the word 'Ireland.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.) In line 3, to leave out the words 'as defined by this Act.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Amendments agreed to— In page 1, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words 'as defined by this Act.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.) In page 1, line 11, to leave out the words 'Public Work Commissioners,' and to insert the words 'Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

MR. HOBHOUSE

in moving to omit "shall" and insert "may" in line 11, said the Bill as it stood would compel the Board of Works to lend money to local authorities without the exercise of any discretion, at all if the consent of the Local Government Board had once been given to the local authority. They did not in any way want to fetter the exercise and use of this gift, but they thought there ought to be reserved to the Board of Works discretion after hearing the case and before advancing the money. In Ireland the Board of Works had to find the money which the Local Government Board had sanctioned. They had in the clause which had just been accepted made a very considerable concession to local authorities by reducing the payment of interest, and that threw still greater responsibility upon those who had to find the money, and it was to safeguard the Board of Works in this new departure that he proposed to give them a discretion.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 11, to leave out the word 'shall,' and to insert the word 'may.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Bill."

MR. CLANCY

said he did not know whether it was any use to appeal to the hon. Gentleman to allow the clause to remain as it stood. What they intended was that the recommendation of the Local Government Board should be final. They would investigate every point before sanctioning the scheme, and the first point inquired into was the financial question—namely, what were the rates, the position of the local authority as to debt, and what was the period for which the loan ought to be made. If the Amendment was made the Treasury might stop in and refuse to pay after the Local Government Board had made its recommendation, and the whole scheme might fall to the ground.

MR. FLAVIN

pointed out that the Local Government Board was a Government Department, and that a local inquiry must be held with sworn evidence as to the necessity for the loan. Surely the Local Government Board inspector would not approve the loan unless the local authority was financially sound and badly wanted the money to build houses. It might happen under the Amendment that after all the expense of the inquiry and after the scheme was approved, the Board of Works would veto the report of the Local Government Board inspector and refuse to advance the money. If that occurred it would simply mean that the Act would become a failure, because the local authority would not promote a second inquiry after having had the first and then failed to get the grant. He strongly supported the view of his hon. friend. It was an extraordinary position that one Government Department should step in and override the decision of another. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would leave the words as they stood in the Bill.

MR. JOYCE

said a case in point had occurred within the past six weeks. A loan was applied for by a local authority to the Local Government Board which, after holding an inquiry, sanctioned the loan. The Board of Works presumably held another inquiry on their own and refused to advance the loan. That was what they wanted to put a stop to.

MR. HOBHOUSE

said he was afraid he must adhere to the alteration which he had proposed, but as long as he was connected with the post which he now held, no unfair advantage should be taken of the change which he desired to make in the Bill. After all, there was another source open, in Ireland as in England, to the local authorities, and that was the ordinary money market. The difference in practice as he understood in England and in Ireland was that in England, as a rule, the local authority could go into the market and raise the money they wanted. In Ireland he understood the practice was different as a rule, and the local authority went to the Board of Works to raise the money. He did not think they could possibly in a Bill of this sort entirely revolutionise the practice which had obtained, whether for good or for evil, in Ireland for a long time, and while he sympathised with the difficulties which hon. Gentlemen below the gangway saw in the restriction which he proposed to make, he was afraid he could not at present withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 14, at end to insert the words 'by the Local Government Board.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

MR. BARRIE moved the omission of subsection (2) of Clause 1 which he thought entirely unnecessary and uncalled for. Loans under the terms of the Bill did not require to be paid out until the work had proceeded to a certain extent, and, indeed, until the houses proposed to be built were within a very few months of giving rent.

SIR F. BANBURY

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 15, to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 1."—(Mr. Barrie.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left cut, to the word 'so,' in page 1, line 17, stand part of the Bill."

MR. CLANCY

hoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment. The effect of the subsection was simply to suspend repayment of the principal until the houses were built and became a paying concern. He could imagine the objection being made to this if the interest upon the money were in any jeopardy, but the interest would continue to be paid from the very moment the money was borrowed. It was only an infinitesimal part of the principal that would not begin to be repaid until two years had passed—the time estimated for the building and letting of the houses. It was a most reasonable thing not to ask the local authorities, provided they paid interest in the meantime, to repay any of the principal until they had got rents from the houses.

MR. CHERRY

said he did not understand on what grounds the hon. Member for North Londonderry objected. He could understand the Treasury objecting because repayment of the principal was postponed, but they had agreed to the clause, and speaking as an Irishman he was delighted to get any small advantage he could. The local authority borrowing would be able under the clause to defer payment of the principal sum for a little time, and he did not see why an Irishman should throw away that advantage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments agreed to— In page 1, line 17, to leave out the words 'so defined as aforesaid.' In page 1, line 20, at end, to insert the words 'Borrowing powers shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be exercised upon the date of the execution of the mortgage or other instrument securing the loan.' In page 1, line 22, to leave out the words 'as denned by this Act.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

MR. BARRIE moved to add at the end of Clause 2, "Always provided that such borrowings do not exceed the present limitation by more than one-third." He said that under this Act all limitation was moved, and consequently he thought it was necessary to fix some such limitation as that which was suggested in his Amendment.

SIR F. BANBUEY

seconded. He thought this was a very essential Amendment. The day before yesterday he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the loss had been to the Irish Land Commissioners, who had lent money for Irish purposes, and he was referred to a certain Return published last session. From that Return he found that since 1881 no less a sum than £9,500,000 had been written off as bad debts.

MR. FLAVIN

What has been written off in this country?

SIR F.BANBURY

said that that did not make it any better, and he was not aware that there had been a single penny written off in that way in this country. But two wrongs did not make a right, and it was a fact that since 1881 £9,500,000 had been written off as bad debts. He did not think that municipalities should have unlimited power to borrow even at low rates. This was a most important Amendment, and one which everybody who had any regard for economy ought to support. This was not entirely an Irish question, because most of the money came from England.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 26, at the end, to insert the words 'Always provided that such borrowings do not exceed the present limitations by more than one-third.'"—(Mr. Barrie.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHERRY

said that this Amendment was intended to limit the power of borrowing. There were cases in Ireland where the housing of the poor was in such a bad condition that it was highly desirable that this Act should be put into force at once, and there were many small Irish towns where the restriction proposed would not be advisable. He agreed that it was desirable that money should not be lent in an extravagant way to local bodies in Ireland, but he thought the Local Government Board and the Board of Works might safely be entrusted to sec to the matter. The authorities were extremely careful to see that advances were not made beyond the powers sanctioned by law. In the interests of the Bill he appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. BARRIE

said he was sorry, but he could not withdraw his Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 34; Noes, 190. (Division List No. 184.)

AYES.
Balcarres, Lord Gordon, J. Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bignold, Sir Arthur Goulding, Edward Alfred Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Carlile, E. Hildred Gretton, John Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hill, Sir Clement Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Clark, George Smith Houston, Robert Paterson Thomson,Mr. Mitchell (Lanark
Clive, Percy Archer Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohn H. Valentia, Viscount
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Kimber, Sir Henry Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart
Craig, Captain Jame (Down,E.) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Younger, George
Dairympie, Viscount Lowe, Sir Francis William
Duncan,Robert (Lanark Govan MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Hugh Barrie and Sir Frederick Banbury.
Faber, George Denison (York) Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Fell, Arthur O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Gardner, Ernest Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.) Boland, John Clancy, John Joseph
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch Bowerman, C. W. Cleland, J. W.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Branch, James Clough, William
Astbury, John Meir Brigg, John Clynes, J. R.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Brooke, Stopford Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Barnes, G. N. Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh) Collins,Sir Wm.J.(S Pancras, W
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.) Bryce, J. Annan Condon, Thomas Joseph
Bell, Richard Burns, Rt. Hon. John Cooper, G. J.
Benn, Sir J.Williams(Devon'prt Cameron, Robert Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E Grinst'd
Bennett, E. N. Charming, Sir Francis Allaton Cowan, W. H.
Bethell, T. B. (Essex, Maldon) Cheetham, John Frederick Cox, Harold
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Crooks, William Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Ridsdale, E. A.
Crosfield, A. H. Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cullinan, J. Lundon, W. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Curran, Peter Francis Lyell, Charles Henry Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Devlin, Joseph Lynch, H. B. Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Dewar, Sir J.A. (Inverness-sh.) MacdonalLd, J. R. (Leicester) Roche, John (Galway, East)
Dickinson, W.H. (St.Pancras,N. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Rowlands J.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Russell, T. W.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Elibank, Master of MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Evans, Sir Samuel T. M'Callum,John M. Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Everett, R. Lacey M'Crae, Sir George Scott, A.H. (Ashton-under-Lyne
Ferens, T. R. M'Killop, W. Seaverns, J. H.
Flavin, Michael Joseph Maddison, Frederick Seely, Colonel
Flynn, James Christopher Mallet, Charles E. Shackleton, David James
Fuller, John Michael F. Manfield, Harry (Northants) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew,W. Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Glendinning, R. G. Marnham, F. J. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Meagher, Michael Sheehy, David
Gulland, John W. Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim,N. Silcoek, Thomas Ball
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Menzies, Walter Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Halpin, J. Molteno, Percy Alport Soares, Ernest J.
Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose) Mond, A. Spicer, Sir Albert
Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) Mooney, J. J. Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Harmsworth,Cecil B.(Worc'str) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Steadman, W. C.
Haworth, Arthur A. Murphy, John (Kerry, East) Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hazleton, Richard Nannetti, Joseph P. Strachey, Sir Edward
Heaton, John Henniker Nicholson,Charles N. (Doncast'r Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Helme, Norval Watson Nolan Joseph Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hemmerde, Edward George Norton, Captain Cecil William Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Nuttall, Harry Torrance, Sir A. M.
Henry, Charles S. O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Higham, John Sharp O'Brien, William (Cork) Ure, Alexander
Hobart, Sir Robert O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Ward John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Hodge, John O'Doherty, Philip Wardle, (George J.
Horniman, Emslie John O'Dowd, John Wason, Rt.Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Hudson, Walter O'Grady, J. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Hyde, Clarendon O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Watt, Henry A.
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred O'Shaughnessy, P. J. White. J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Jones,Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea) Partington, Oswald White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Pearee, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Whitehead, Rowland
Jowett, F. W. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Whitley. John Henry (Halifax)
Joyce, Michael Philipes, Owen C. (Pembroke) Wiles, Thomas
Kavanagh, Walter M. Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Kearley, Sir Hudson E. Pickersgill, Edward Hare Williamson, A.
Kilbride, Denis Pirie, Duncan, V. Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Laidlaw, Robert Pollard, Dr. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Power, Patrick Joseph Yoxall, James Henry
Lambert, George Price, C.E. (Edinb'rgh, Central)
Lamont, Norman Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Captain Donclan.
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Redmond, John E.(Waterford
Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Redmond, William (Clare)
Lea, Hugh Cecil(St.Paneras, E. Rees, J. D.

MR. BARRIE moved to leave out Clause 3, because in his opinion the proposals it contained were without precedent in Irish legislation.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

seconded. He thought this clause would lead to a great deal of wastefulness, and not only this, but it would take away the power of the veto by the Local Government Board who had always had the last voice in disputes in regard to securities given for money borrowed. The clause seemed to him to give far too wide borrowing powers. Nothing was laid down as to how the money was to be borrowed or what rate of interest was to be paid, and altogether it would tend to encourage a very bad state of finance. He did not think the Government were justified in suggesting that the safeguard proposed by his hon. friend should be rejected, and he would be glad to hear from the Attorney-General why it was proposed to restrict the powers of the Local Government Board in this matter. They could not be too cautious in regard to money matters in Ireland, and he hoped the House would consent to leave out this clause.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 1, to leave out Clause 3."—(Mr. Barrie.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'without' in page 2, line 3, stand part of the Bill."

MR. CLANCY

said the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North Londonderry was absolutely ridiculous from the point of view of an Irishman who professed to be in favour of the Bill. The whole object of the clause was to enable a local authority which had borrowed at a high rate of interest to borrow at a lower rate in order to wipe off debt, and he could not see what objection there could be to that at all. The hon. Member said that the clause was unprecedented, but he was wrong, because there were several precedents for it. The last precedent was set by the late Unionist Government, who put into an Act of Parliament a section from which the clause now under discussion had been copied and not a single word altered The clause simply gave county councils power to re-borrow on the terms laid down in the clause, and it did not increase their capital liabilities, at all. It would enable those local bodies who had borrowed at 4½ per cent. to take advantage of borrowing at the lower rate of interest under the Bill.

SIR F. BANBURY

said he understood that the clause meant that where the local authority had borrowed money at 4½ per cent., they might go to the Treasury and borrow money at 3 per cent, in order to pay off the 4½ per cent, loan. The clause, however, went much beyond that. It was the most extraordinary clause he had ever read, and much more appropriate to some Oriental country or a South American Republic. As he read the clause it gave county councils the power to borrow and never pay off. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Nothing could be worse or more detrimental to the Irish county councils, than to allow such a clause to pass. Whatever the words at the end of the clause might mean, there was no doubt that the interpretation which he had given of the clause was the correct one, and under those circumstances he should support the proposal made by his hon. friend.

MR. CHERRY

thought the objections which had been raised to the clause would be removed if hon. Members would consider the Amendment lower down on the Paper which the Government advised the House to accept. He thought that would meet the point raised by the hon. Member for North Londonderry.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments agreed to— In page 2, line 3, to leave out the words 'without any,' and to insert the words 'with the.'"—(Mr. Barrie.) In page 2, line 14, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that it shall not be obligatory upon the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to lend money to any local authority for any of the purposes authorised by this section.' In page 2, to leave out Clause 4. In page 3, to leave out Clause 5."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

SIR F. BANBURY

moved to leave out Clause 6.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

seconded. He asked whether there would be any possibility of any large schemes being carried out without the consent of the Local Government Board. The clause conferred a very wide power which ought not to be conferred under a Bill of this kind. He thought there should be some security or safeguard provided.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 35, to leave out Clause 6."—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'For,' in page 4, line 13, stand part of the Bill."

MR. CLANCY

expressed the hope that the House would not assent to the Amendment. The clause had already been carefully considered by the Government, and they were more responsible for the words than any private Member The words were put in more for the purpose of having regard to existing legislation than for the purpose of depriving the local authority of any power whatever.

MR. CHERRY

said the hon. and gallant Member objected to a scheme being passed without the sanction of Parliament or of the Local Government Board. He pointed out that the only scheme that would be put in force would be with the sanction of the Local Government Board. Nothing could be done here by any local body. The obtaining of the sanction of Parliament would be an expensive and dilatory process. There was no danger of any predatory scheme being adopted.

MR. LONSDALE (Armagh, Mid.)

thought that if the sanction of the Local Government Board had to be obtained, that should satisfy hon. Members.

SIR HENRY KIMBER (Wandsworth)

suggested that some inquiry should be made into this matter. He had sat on Committees this session and last session which had considered many Bills dealing with the same kind of subject as that with which this clause dealt, and it was necessary to proceed by Provisional Order.

MR. CLANCY

said the way the matter stood was this: The late Government in one of their Housing Acts made it possible to obtain certain of these Orders without the sanction of Parliament and merely with the sanction of the Local Government Board. One small case was left un-provided for by the late Government in 1903 or 1901, and it was to provide for that case that this clause was now proposed.

MR. GORDON

said he had always understood that these Orders had to be confirmed by Parliament. What was now proposed would certainly introduce a new principle with respect to the right which Parliament exercised to object to the confirmation of these Orders. He did not say whether the new principle was a good or a bad one, but he would ask the Attorney-General to consider the point before they passed the Bill.

MR. CHERRY

said that the hon. and learned Member had forgotten that some of the Labourers Acts did not require that Parliament should confirm Orders. This was an exactly parallel case. This was practically a Labourers Act for towns, and why on earth should not the procedure be the same in both cases? The only object in not having the Orders confirmed by Parliament was to save expense and delay.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHERRY moved to amend subsection (3) with the object of providing that certain statutory advertisements might be published in any month, instead of at the periods fixed by existing enactments.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 13, to leave out subsection (3), and to insert the words '(3) For the purposes of this section, Section 203 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and Section 7 of the Act of 1890 shall have effect with the following modifications, that is to say, the advertisements mentioned in those sections respectively may be published in any month, and the notices mentioned in those sections respectively shall be served in the month next following the month in which the advertisements are published.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)

Amendment agreed to.

CAPTAIN CRAIG moved to leave out subsection (4). It seemed to him that under this subsection if a scheme was brought forward and sanctioned by the Local Government Board, no matter how autocratic or unjust, no one would have the right to issue an injunction or prohibition. If the Local Government Board were doing no harm, why should it not be in the power of an aggrieved person to apply for an injunction?

MR. CLANCY

said he would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— To leave out subsection (4)."—(Captain Craig.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 23, to leave out the word 'receive,' land insert the words 'with the consent of the Local Government Board accept.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)

Amendment agreed to.

SIR F. BANBURY moved to omit Clause 9. It seemed to him to be an exceedingly bad clause because it proposed to give to local authorities power to make remissions and abatements of rates in certain cases. If the houses had been built in accordance with plans approved of by the local authority and were occupied by persons of the working classes at rents sanctioned by the local authority then the local authority might excuse the occupants from paying rates. He had always understood that taxation and representation, should go together. At least, that was an adage of the old Liberal Party. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to deprive these people of the franchise? Then, if they were not to pay rates, were the other people in the district not only to pay their own rates but the rates of these working class occupants? It seemed to him that it would be quite impossible to let a clause of that sort go through. There was another extraordinary proviso which stated that if at any time any such premises were let to or occupied by other persons, and at rents not sanctioned by the local authority, any rates remitted or abated should become a charge upon the owner's interest in the premises, and might be recovered from the owner in a Court of summary jurisdiction. The owner might let a house to a working man who might sub-let it to a person who was not a working man, and the owner was to be penalised by having to pay the rates! Surely the Government were not serious in supporting a clause of that sort. It subverted every precedent that had ever guided any Parliament for the last 900 years; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would consent to its deletion, more especially as it did not touch the principle of the Bill. Moreover, this was a rateable clause, and he did not know that it came within the scope of the Bill. He asked Mr. Speaker's ruling as to whether this clause really was in order. The title of the Bill was "Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill "; it had nothing to do with the remission of rates.

*MR. SPEAKER

said he was afraid the hon. Baronet was too late in taking the objection; he ought to have taken it at an earlier stage.

SIR F. BANBURY

said that this was one of the Bills which had been sent to a Grand Committee, and he was not on the Committee. He begged to move the omission of the clause.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

seconded the Amendment. He must say that this clause could not have been seriously considered in Committee, and perhaps the pro-motors of that Bill would withdraw it even at that late hour. The more he studied the clause the more extraordinary it seemed to be. It said that so long as "such premises shall be and shall continue to be let to, and occupied by persons of the working classes only." Everybody knew that in labourers' cottages throughout Ireland the occupants were not always of the labouring class; and he had no doubt that in a certain time these houses, if built, would not be occupied by working classes. The clause did not in fact touch the question of the housing of the working classes; and he believed that there must be some hidden reason for excusing these people from paying rates. He had no doubt many occupants of the benches below the gangway would like to see the working classes in Ireland excused from paying rates as well as to have the rents of their houses fixed for them. Nothing could be further from the promotion of good government in any town in Ireland than the fact of people being allowed to have a vote in the locality without at the same time paying rates. If this clause remained in the Bill the effect would be that local elections throughout Ireland would turn to a large extent on the question of rents and the rates they paid on their houses. Then, if there was a loss on letting these houses he did not know upon whom that loss would eventually fall, if it were not to be charged on the rates. The clause seemed to him an anomaly, and an absurdity unless there was some reason for it of which they had not yet heard.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 26, to learn out Clause 9."— Sir F. Banbury.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'during,' in page 5, line 28, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. GORDON

said he did not see why a clause like this should be allowed to stand. The man who built the houses was to be at the mercy of the local authority as to the remission of the rates, and the result would lie that the owner would make up the amount of the rates by putting it on the rent. Again, if the house was let to somebody who did not belong to the working classes the rates were to be a charge on the owners' interest in the property for ten years. Who was to determine whether the house was let to a person belonging to the working classes? It seemed that that was to be determined by the local authority and that their determination was to be final. That was to say that if the local authority came to the conclusion that an occupant of a house did not belong to the working classes, they could make the owner pay the rates for ten years. He maintained that the clause was wholly unnecessary. The right way to provide houses for the working classes was that it should be done directly by the local authority, and not indirectly as the Bill proposed.

MR. CLANCY

said that the object of this clause was to induce private speculators, out of their own resources, to undertake the building of houses for the working classes, and thereby to relieve the local authorities of part of the burden of raising the money for that purpose. He could not imagine anyone having a real objection to a clause of that kind. It was to be presumed that building speculators would not undertake the erection of such houses without being intelligent enough to know the conditions under which they invested their money. The clause presented to them in plain terms the conditions under which they were to have a certain advantage, and the circumstances under which they might lose that advantage if they violated the conditions. It could not be said that any hardship would be inflicted on anyone in these circumstances. An hon. Member had made a statement as to some concealed reason for the clause. He could assure the hon. Member that there was no ground for any such suspicion. Its whole object was to relieve municipalities from the burden of raising the money themselves if they could get it from private sources. The clause ought to be welcomed by the House, for it would tend to lessen the amount borrowed from the State and so relieve the Exchequer. What hardship was there in that? He confessed that he did not expect a very large advantage from the clause, but he believed that a certain number of houses would be built in every town in Ireland if the clause was passed.

*MR. NANNETTI

said he was surprised that there should be any objection to the clause. The object of it was to hold out inducements to private capitalists to build houses for the working classes of Ireland. He knew that in Dublin that very intention was being carried out at the present moment. There were several cases where capitalists had taken advantage of the abatement of the rates to build houses for the working classes, and so had relieved many corporations from that expenditure when they wanted the money for other purposes. He was surprised to find hon. Members raising an objection. He was against municipalisation in this matter. He would much prefer to see houses of this kind built by private individuals than to see it made a municipal undertaking. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would resist the Amendment.

MR. CHERRY

thought the House would agree that this was a very strong clause. He proposed to amend it by inserting in the third line of the clause, "with the consent of the Local Government Board." The result would be that the Local Government Board would be the deciding body, and it was very unlikely that the Local Government Board would sanction the remission of rates to a private speculator for the purpose of building houses unless they saw it would be for the benefit of the ratepayers. The clause proposed to restrict the rates that could be remitted under this clause to rates other than the poor rate, and he thought with his Amendment and the further Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin, to except the poor rate, there would be security against any abuse of the powers asked for. He supported the clause and hoped, with the modifications proposed, it would be accepted.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 157; Noes, 25. (Division List No. 185.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.) Horniman, Emslie John Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Hudson, Walter Pirie, Duncan V.
Astbury, John Meir Jackson, R. S. Power, Patrick Joseph
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Jowett, F. W. Price, C.E.(Edinb'gh, Central)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Joyce, Michael Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.
Bell, Richard Kavanagh, Walter M. Reddy, M.
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt Kearley, Sir Hudson E. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Bennett, E. N. Kekewich, Sir George Redmond, William (Clare)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Kilbride, Denis Rees, J. D.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Laidlaw, Robert Ridsdale, E. A.
Boland, John Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Bowernman, C. W. Lambert, George Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Branch, James Lamont, Norman Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Brigg, John Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Roche, John (Galway, East)
Brooke, Stopford Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Rowlands, J.
Bryce, J. Annan Lundon, W. Russell, T. W.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B' ghs Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Cheetham, John Frederick Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Scott, AH(Ashton-under-Lyne)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Seaverns, J. H.
Clancy, John Joseph Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Seely, Colonel
Cleland, J. W. Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Clough, William M'Callum, John M. Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) M'Crae, Sir George Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Condon, Thomas Joseph M'Kean, John Sheehy, David
Cooper, G. J. M'Killop, W. Silcock, Thomas Ball
Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Crean, Eugene Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston) Stanley,Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Crooks, William. Marnham, F. J. Steadman, W. C.
Crosfield, A. H. Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Cullinan, J. Meagher, Michael Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury
Curran, Peter Francis Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Devlin, Joseph Menzies, Walter Ure, Alexander
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Montagu, Hon. E. S. Vivian, Henry
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Mooney, J. J. Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Wardle, George J.
Elibank, Master of Murphy, John (Kerry, East) Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan
Evans, Sir Samuel T. Nannetti, Joseph P. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r Watt, Henry A.
Flynn, James Christopher Nolan, Joseph White, J. D. (Dumbartonsihire)
Fuller, John Michael F. Norton, Capt. Cecil William White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Glendinning, R. G. Nuttall, Harry Whitehead, Rowland
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary,Mid Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Gulland, John W. O'Brien, William (Cork) Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius O'Doherty, Philip Wiles, Thomas
Halpin, J. O'Dowd, John Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Grady, J Williamson, A.
Haworth, Arthur A. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N) Wilson. J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Hazleton, Richard O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N. Yoxall, James Henry
Hemmerde, Edward George O'Malley, William
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Shaughnessy, P J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Hobart, Sir Robert Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Hodge, John Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hogan, Michael Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
NOES.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Houston, Robert Paterson Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Strachey, Sir Edward
Dalrymple, Viscount Lowe, Sir Francis William Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan Lyell, Charles Henry Thomson, W.Mitchell (Lanark)
Gordon, J. MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Younger, George
Hamilton, Marquess of Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Hill, Sir Clement Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Captain Craig.
Hills, J. W. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Hobart, Sir Robert Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Salter, Arthur Clavell

Amendments agreed to— In page 5, line 28, before the word 'during,' to insert the words 'with the consent of the Local Government Board.'"—(Mr. Cherry.) In page 5, line 30, after the word 'rates,' to insert the words 'except the poor rate.'"—(Mr. Clancy.) In page 7, line 3, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words 'and as regards any land acquired from the Commissioners of Woods, subject to the consent of those Commissioners.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.) To omit Clause 15."—(Mr. Cherry.) In page 7, line 30, at beginning, to insert the words 'In this Act unless the context otherwise requires—the expression "Local Government Board" means "the Local Government Board for Ireland;" the expression "local financial year" means "the twelve months ending the thirty-first day of March;" the expression "purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts" means "any purposes authorised by the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1896, or by any of those Acts, or by this Act."'"—(Mr. Cherry.) In page 8, line 1, after the word 'suitors,' leave out the word 'of,' and insert the word 'in.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)

Bill read the third time, and passed.