Sitting of 1 August 1896

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  MR. T. M. HEALYraised a question of privilege. He said that it was essential with regard to all private Bills that ample time should be given to opponents to bring forward their objections. Yesterday, at half-past 4 o'clock, a Motion was carried to recommit the Dublin Corporation Bill. At 5 o'clock the Committee of Selection met, without notice to the Chairman, (Sir John Mowbray), and appointed four Members to serve on the Select Committee for the recommitted Bill. Monday at 11 o'clock was named for the further hearing of the Bill till a protest was made, and then, as a matter of grace to the opponents, a postponement till Tuesday was made. Grave interests were involved, and half-a-dozen townships were concerned. They could not decide what to do at a moment's notice, and in any case they required time to organise the opposition. He submitted that the Committee of Selection, in acting without notice to their Chairman, and in refusing to give time for the opposition to the Bill, had abrogated the private Bill practice of the House and had denied justice to the parties concerned.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have not yet seen any question of privilege. The Select Committee when appointed have a right to fix their own time, unless this House makes an Order to the contrary. It may be a matter of complaint, but it cannot be a question of privilege, that the Committee have appointed a day which is said to be inconvenient to the parties.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then I submit that the Committee of Selection, in holding a meeting without notice to its Chairman, and without considering the Bill, committed an irregularity of procedure amounting to a breach of privilege.
  MR. SPEAKER: As far as I can see, nothing has been done contrary to any Rules of the House. The convenience of the parties is a matter for the Chairman of Committees.

  TROUT FISHING CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Committee read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
  On the Order for the Third Reading of this Bill,
  MR. HERBERT LEWISprotested that this work was being undertaken without any idea of what the total cost would be. If the railway were any ordinary undertaking, it would not be entered upon without, in the first place, most exhaustive surveys, and every specification being provided for.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS (RE-COMMITTED) BILL [H.L.]
  As amended, considered.
  On the Question, "That the Bill be read the Third time,"
  MR. J. P. FARRELLasked what would be the effect in Ireland of the tax to be imposed on motor cars?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,)said that the Bill did not affect Ireland at all. The tax was an addition to the existing Carriage Tax, and there was no Carriage Tax in Ireland.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELthought it very strange that Ireland should be exempted from this Bill.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  Clause 3,—

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

    LOANS TO SCOTTISH FISHERY BOARD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENT OF HARBOURS IN SCOTLAND.
    Where under Section twenty-seven of the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act 1895, the Fishery Board for Scotland, with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland, apply to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for a loan on the security of the annual grant under the Fisheries Act 1824, or of any part thereof, the Public Works Loan Commissioners may grant the loan on the same terms as regards rate of interest and period for repayment as are applicable to loans to harbour authorities under the Harbours and Passing Tolls, etc., Act, 1861.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked what additional privileges the Scotch Fishery Boards obtained under this Bill.
    MR. HANBURYsaid that there was no difference in the rate of interest on Irish and Scotch harbour loans. Under the existing' law the Scotch Fishery Board could borrow at 4 per cent. The Public Works Loan Commissioners had power to lend to Harbour Boards at 3¼ per cent., and this clause merely allowed the same terms to the Fishery Board as to a Harbour Board in that respect.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would pledge himself that any reduced rate of interest granted in the case of Scotch loans would be given also in the case of Irish loans?
    MR. HANBURYsaid that the rate of interest charged must depend on the purposes of the loan and the security given.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the Dundalk Harbour Board, which was paying 4 per cent. for its loan, applied for a lower rate of interest and were refused. Unless he could get a satisfactory explanation of the favouritism shown to Scotland, he should divide against the clause and move Amendments on Report.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)said he had no particular knowledge of the case of Dundalk. The amount of interest charged on these loans was regulated by Act of Parliament. He agreed, however, that the
    1320
    system of fixing the rate of interest on loans for local purposes was unsatisfactory and required consideration. He would undertake to look into the matter between now and next year, and endeavour to fix the rate of interest for all parts of the United Kingdom alike, dependent upon the purpose of the loan and the security which could be given. He could assure the hon. Member that the Government had no desire to do injustice to Ireland as compared with Scotland in this matter.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked, in regard to future advances, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake that money would not be advanced for Scottish harbours at a cheaper rate than in the case of Irish harbours?
    The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Assuming the security to be the same, I think I can give such an assurance.
    MR. J. G. HOLBORNdid not think that in Scotland they were at all favoured by the Treasury, but considered the hon. Gentleman had made out a case for inquiry as to the principles on which those loans were granted, which should be as far as possible uniform and at the lowest rate.
    Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 4,—

    APPORTIONMENT OF ADVANCES FOR DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUMS IN IRELAND.
    In the case of any district lunatic asylum in Ireland, established or to be established for a district consisting of more than one county (including a county of a city and a county of a town), the Lord Lieutenant may, by Order in Council, direct that any money advanced, or to be advanced, by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland for any of the purposes of the asylum shall be repaid by the counties forming the district in such manner and in such proportions as may be fixed by the Order.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a pledge that, ample security being given by the Grand Jury, Irish Lunatic Asylum Boards should get loans on as favourable terms as those on which the Scotch Industry Loans were granted.
    MR. HANBURYsaid that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, the whole question of these loans was one which ought to be considered, and it would be considered very soon, because

    1321
    the Acts of Parliament regulating these loans and the rate of interest varied very considerably without any very good apparent reason. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a sufficient indication of the view of the Government, that, as far as they probably could secure it, when the security was of exactly the same character, the same rate of interest should be chargeable in the three countries.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman to explain the purpose of the Clause.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, that by the 18 & 19 Vic. cap. 109, the Lord Lieutenant was empowered to make orders for the apportionment of the moneys actually expended on lunatic asylums. At that time no interest was chargeable on advances. Interest was first imposed by the Public Works Loans Act of 1877, and the Board of Works thought it necessary to have the power to make an early apportionment in such cases. Since 1877 these loans had grown very considerably, and when two or three authorities were concerned in the loan up to the present moment the apportionment of their share in the loans had not been made until the work was actually completed, and these works had sometimes taken seven or eight years to complete. During that time, of course, advances had been made, and it had been impossible to obtain payment of the interest on the advances as soon as they were made, owing to the fact that the apportionment could not be made until the work was actually completed. The hon. Gentleman would see that that certainly was not a fair arrangement to the lending authority. It was only fair that interest should be got on moneys actually advanced. It was proposed under this clause that the apportionment should be made between the different authorities when the advances were made, and that they should pay interest on their share.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid this was a matter which excited very great interest in Ireland, and it acquired importance from the fact that, owing to the overcrowding of lunatic asylums, a great many of them had been considerably extended, and large sums of money had been spent upon their
    1322
    extension. The attention of the Secretary of the Treasury had been called to the fact that the advances to the asylums were being made on such terms as to practically enable the Treasury to make a profit. During the first few years he should think that the Chief Secretary must have received some hundreds of resolutions from different public bodies protesting against the terms which the Treasury imposed. These protests had come not from Nationalist Members of Parliament, but from Grand Juries composed of landowners and country gentlemen. Though he admitted that they had received on the present occasion a more favourable statement as to the rate of interest than they had previously succeeded in extracting, on the other hand the substance of the reply was that the local bodies in Ireland were now to pay interest which previously the Treasury could not extract.
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that this appeared to be a Scottish grievance rather than an Irish one. Scotland had been paying 1 per cent. against 3½ on the part of Ireland, as well as a reasonable amount for lunatic asylums against nothing at all on the part of Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that a deputation, composed of gentlemen belonging to Grand Juries, recently waited on the Lord Lieutenant with reference to this grievance. They applied for some fair consideration with regard to these loans, but instead of receiving a pledge that the loans would be reduced to the market rate, the Board of Works practically said Ireland had not been paying interest and they wanted coercive powers. The Government should give a statement as to their policy with regard to these lunacy loans. Why was the clause necessary at the present time? He complained that, instead of hon. Members getting reasons for Pills in the shape of Blue-books or Treasury statements, the Government practically brought forward their financial proposals in such a manner as to cause the House as a whole to play at blind man's buff.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he had not seen the clause before that day. Certain counties in Ireland had joined themselves together for the purpose of loans for lunatic asylums, and, without such an

    1323
    apportionment as was here provided, the loans would not be properly arranged. This clause legalised that apportionment, and if sanction was not given to the clause possibly the whole matter would be suspended; but he would give an undertaking to look carefully into the question before next Session, when he hoped to make some proposals affecting the rate of interest on loans generally.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYasked why the clause was drawn in such a manner that no Member of the House could possibly understand that it was a clause which imposed a fresh charge on Irish taxpayers? Though the clause purported to be one for the apportionment of these charges, no one would suspect that the apportionment was little more than a process of levying interest. These loans had probably been made for more than half a century. The basis of the original system was that interest was not to be paid until an apportionment was made; and they must assume that the Treasury calculated the original rate of interest in view of the circumstances in which the advance had to be made, and that no interest would be payable pending an apportionment. The clause was unintelligible to the House until the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that it was a proposal enabling the Treasury to levy a charge on Irish taxpayers which during half a century had never previously been made. Next Session was the time to make any change in the mode of apportionment of the loans and the charges for them; and in these circumstances he asked the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the clause this year.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERadmitted that there was some reason in the view which had been urged, but the Government did not feel able to withdraw the clause. He was advised that it went beyond the payment of interest, and that it was necessary to legalise the apportionment between counties. If the Committee passed the clause the Government would undertake to make such an Amendment in it on Report as would secure that it should not involve any new charge of interest on counties before the date when the interest became due.
    MR. T. M. HEALYaccepted the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought, however, that
    1324
    the Resolution on which the Bill was founded was too narrow. It had only regard to the case of the Draperstown Railway; but the Committee were passing a clause creating a further charge on the taxpayer. He submitted as a point of order that it was incompetent for the Committee to pass the clause at all at this stage, because, while creating a fresh charge, they were not basing their procedure in reference to it. He suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should undertake to withdraw the clause now, and that hereafter the Committee should have the advantage of debating this matter in Committee, and not on Report stage.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I may point out that the last words of the Resolution of the House are, "and for other purposes relating to local loans." I think those words will cover this clause.
    THE CHANCELLOF OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that, after all, he thought the clause had better be omitted.
    Clause negatived.
    Clause 5,—

    CERTAIN DEBTS NOT TO BE RECKONED AS ASSETS OF LOCAL LOANS FUND.
    Whereas it is expedient that the principal of the several local loans specified in the schedule to this Act should, to the extent specified in the last column of that schedule, not he reckoned as assets of the Local Loans Fund established under the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887: therefore the principal of the said loans shall, to that extent, he written off from the assets of the Local Loans Fund, and the provisions of Section fifteen of the said Act shall, so far as applicable, apply thereto.
    MR. T. P. WHITTAKERasked for an explanation of the clause.
    MR. HANBURYsaid that it was only for the purpose of replenishing the coffers of the Local Loans Fund by wiping off the assets specified, and replacing them by funds upon the Exchequer, that this clause was introduced.
    MR. WHITTAKERasked whether the amount to be written off the assets of the Local Loans Fund was irrecoverable?
    MR. HANBURYsaid that the sum was not written off as irrecoverable.
    MR. WHITTAKERthought they must make up their minds that these

    1325
    amounts were written off as bad loans, and he trusted that this would be a warning to the House not to make loans of this character.
    MR. PARKER SMITHwished to know for how long these loans had been running, and whether, calculating the rate of interest payable under the Local Loans Fund, any allowance was made for bad debts. Was the rate of interest sufficient to cover bad debts?
    MR. HANBURYreplied that the possibility of bad debts was taken into consideration in calculating the amount of interest. The loans in question had only been running since 1886.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 6,—

    REMISSION OF LOAN TO DRAPERSTOWN RAILWAY COMPANY.
    Whereas the property mortgaged as security for the loan mentioned in Part II. of the Schedule of this Act has been sold with the consent of the Treasury, and it is therefore expedient that the debt due in respect of the principal sum outstanding on account of that loan should be extinguished: therefore the said debt (including all claims for interest in respect thereof) shall be extinguished and the amount thereof shall be deemed to be a free grant from Parliament.
    MR. HANBURYsaid that in 1884 a loan of £15,000 was made to the Draperstown Railway Company. Some years afterwards the Company became practically bankrupt and arrangements were entered into by which an adjoining company worked the railway, receiving 70 per cent. of the receipts. That agreement expired three years ago, and the Railway Company which was working the line then asked to have 85 per cent. of the receipts. That the Government refused, and, being unable to come to any other arrangement they sold the line in respect of which there was this loan of £15,000 to the adjoining railway company for £2,000. The line having been sold, there was of course no further security for the loan. Having, therefore, no hope whatever of recovering anything more, this loan was treated as a bad debt. The line in question was a very small one, extending only for nine or ten miles.
    MR. WHITTAKERasked whether the interest on the loan had not been I paid for a number of years, and whether
    1326
    that loss should be added to the loss of the amount advanced.
    MR. HANBURYwas sorry to say that the loss did extend to the interest.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: This case is not a job perpetrated by the present Government, but by the last Goverment.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment; Bill, as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  As amended, considered.
  Clause 3,—

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]

    DEFINING SECTION 96 (2) OF 53 & 54 VICT. C. 70.
    Section ninety-six, sub-section two, of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, shall be read and construed as if the words "and any Acts amending the same" had been inserted after "1871," and as if the words "in the ease of a rural sanitary authority" had been inserted after the words "provided that" occurring in that sub-section.
    MR. J. CALDWELL MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid) moved, at the end of the clause to add:—
    Provided that any expenditure that any burgh, within the meaning of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, may make under the provisions of this or of the recited Acts shall be defrayed out of a rate to be levied along with, but as a separate rate from, the general improvement rate leviable under said Burgh Police (Scotland) Act where such general improvement rate is levied; but where such rate is not levied, then by a rate to be imposed and levied in the same manner as if it were the general improvement rate, with all the powers of imposition, collection, and recovery applicable to that rate."
    He explained that the effect of the Amendment would be to assimilate the system of taxation in burghs for the purposes of this Bill with the system that would prevail in counties. If the Amendment were agreed to half the rate would be borne by the owners and half by the occupiers. He protested against the proposal to impose the rate in burghs upon occupiers exclusively; but he did not intend to press his Amendment to a Division.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  Clause 2,—
  Section two of the schedule to the Bishopric of Bristol Act, 1884, is hereby repealed, and there shall by virtue of this Act be substituted for it the following section, that is to say:—
  The diocese to consist of—

  (a) "The deaneries of Bristol and Stapleton";

  (b) "The deaneries of Malmesbury or Malmesbury North, Chippenham or Malmesbury South, and Cricklade, in the county of Wilts (except the parishes of Kemble and Poole Keynes in the deanery of Malmesbury and the parishes of Somerford Keynes and Sharncote in the deanery of Cricklade), and the deanery of Bitton in the county of Gloucester",

  and all other provisions of the said Act as amended by the Bishopric of Bristol Amendment Act, 1894, and all other enactments having reference in any manner to the section aforesaid shall be read and have effect accordingly.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid that while he had no intention of opposing the Measure, he wished to offer one or two observations upon it, as no Debate had taken place on the Second Reading. This subject had been brought before the notice of Parliament on several occasions. Fourteen years ago an Act was passed authorising the formation of a separate See for Bristol, but the bishopric was not yet in existence. Then, two years ago an amending Act was passed, and now Parliament was asked to pass another Measure on the subject. The necessary funds for the formation of the See had been obtained, with the exception of £5,000, which was required for the purpose of making alterations in the Bishop's house and erecting a private chapel. Bearing in mind the time that had elapsed since this project was first started, it was not unreasonable to suppose that yet more time would elapse before the contributions to the fund reached the additional sum that was wanted. By that time the promoters of this legislation might have changed their minds once more upon the subject of the boundaries of the proposed diocese, and in that case application would have to be made to Parliament for the fourth time. Other religious denominations did not trouble Parliament in that way; the reason being that they were not established by
  1328
  law. The money necessary for the See had obviously been obtained with great difficulty; but, when everything would be ready for the appointment of the Bishop the subscribers to the fund would have no share in the selection made, but would have to accept the nominee of the Prime Minister of the day.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! The remarks of the hon. Member are not pertinent to this clause, which deals simply with the limits of the See.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSconcluded by saying that, when the See should have been created and a Bishop appointed, many of the subscribers to the fund would in all probability disapprove of the selection.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked what was the amount of income proposed to be transferred under this Bill, and at whose instigation the Bill was brought forward. A significant memorandum on the back of the Bill said that it was introduced in order to meet the wishes of some of the principal owners of property in certain parishes. But owners of property were not the people chiefly interested in subjects of this kind, and he wished to ask whether the parishioners concerned had been consulted in the matter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he was responsible for this Bill. There was nothing whatever in the Bill about any transfer of money. It merely dealt with an alteration of the boundaries laid down for the Bishopric of Bristol under a former Act. The phrase to which the hon. Member referred was certainly rather an unfortunate one, but he was not responsible for it. He knew that the parishioners had been consulted, and that it was their unanimous desire that the change should be made.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(First Lord of the Treasury)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly, at Twenty minutes after One o'clock, till Monday next.