HC Deb 10 April 1883 vol 277 cc1966-7
MR. TOTTENHAM

asked the Postmaster General, Under what circumstances the subsidy of £ 30,00 0 per annum was originally granted to the Chester and Holyhead Railway Company, in connection with the Irish Mail Contract, and whether it was under the Treasury Minute of the 17th September 1844, for a period of twelve years; whether this was in anticipation of the construction of the line, and in aid of the objects generally of the Promoters thereof, as expressed in Treasury Minute of the 20th August 1844; whether the payment was further continued by the present contract with the London and North Western, Chester and Holyhead, and City of Dublin Steam Packet Companies, to be payable until the termination of such contract; and, whether the payment will so terminate on the 1st of October 1883; and, if not, under what authority will it be continued, and what benefit will the Post Office or the public derive from this large subvention of public funds?

MR. FAWCETT

Sir, the circumstances connected with the original payment of £30,000 are so complicated that I fear it would be impossible for me to explain them within the limits of an Answer to a Question. I may state, however, generally, that the payment, which began in 1844, was made in the first instance not exclusively for postal services, and came to an end 12 years afterwards. A payment of the same amount was continued to the Company at the time when the present Irish mail arrangements were made in consideration of the general mail service—including the Irish—on the Chester and Holyhead Line. The payment of the £30,000 will cease with the expiration of the existing contract on the 1st of October. The advantages which the public and the Post Office derive from the payment in question are of the same character as those detailed in the Minute of 1858; and, as this is before Parliament, I do not think it will be desirable for me to occupy the time of the House in explaining them.

MR. TOTTENHAM

asked whether it was in contemplation that this payment, or an equivalent one, should be continued under the new contract?

MR. FAWCETT

It has been already stated that it was part of the new contract to be confirmed by Parliament. I stated that on a previous occasion.