asked what additional privileges the Scotch Fishery Boards obtained under this Bill.

said 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.

asked 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?

said that the rate of interest charged must depend on the purposes of the loan and the security given.

said 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.

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 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.

asked, 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?

Assuming the security to be the same, I think I can give such an assurance.

did 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.

asked 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.

said 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 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.

asked the right hon. Gentleman to explain the purpose of the Clause.

said, 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.

said 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 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.

said 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.

said 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.

said 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 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.

asked 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.

admitted 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.

accepted the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought, however, that 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.

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.

said that, after all, he thought the clause had better be omitted.

asked for an explanation of the clause.

said 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.

asked whether the amount to be written off the assets of the Local Loans Fund was irrecoverable?

said that the sum was not written off as irrecoverable.

thought they must make up their minds that these 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.

wished 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?

replied 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.

said 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.

asked whether the interest on the loan had not been I paid for a number of years, and whether that loss should be added to the loss of the amount advanced.

was sorry to say that the loss did extend to the interest.

This case is not a job perpetrated by the present Government, but by the last Goverment.