§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the scheme approved for a light railway from Galway to Clifden was designed by Mr. Price, C.E.; whether Mr. Price, C.E., is, or was, consulting engineer for an English Syndicate promoting light railways in Ireland, including the one selected in Galway; whether the plans for the adopted Galway 696 scheme were lodged by Mr. Price, or their accuracy sworn to by him or by any one who had actually made the necessary surveys; and whether the engineers, who are to certify to the progress of the work for the purpose of obtaining the public money to be given for the construction of the line, are to be paid by the promoters of the line, one of whom is proposed contractor? I have also to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that of the four competing schemes for a light railway from Galway to Clifden, the one reported on favourably and adopted by the Board of Works is that the plans of which were made and lodged by Mr. Price, C.E., or by other persons acting under his instructions; whether Mr. Barton, C.E., was one of those who reported favourably on Mr. Price's scheme; and whether, while Mr. Barton was reporting favourably on Mr. Price's Galway scheme, Mr. Price was one of those who reported favourably on Mr. Barton's scheme for a light railway in Donegal?
§ * MR. JACKSONI am informed that Mr. John Price originally laid out the line referred to in 1885 when the scheme was passed by the Grand Jury under the Act of 1883; but it was thrown out by the Privy Council. Mr. Price was consulting engineer to the English Company mentioned; but ho retired from that position before the public inquiry was held. The plans for the adopted scheme were lodged in the hands of Mr. Towns-end, C.E., and Mr. Joyce, who gave evidence. With reference to the third paragraph in the first question the appointment of engineers to certify to the progress of the work will, of course, rest with the Board of Works. No steps have been taken, and, therefore, I am not able to say who will be appointed engineers. I am able to say, however, that inquiries into the merits of the schemes under the Light Railways Act, 1889, were held, and that full opportunity was given for bringing out the merits or defects of the scheme.
§ MR. CLANCYDoes the hon. Gentleman admit that Mr. Barton reported in favour of Mr. Price's scheme, and that Mr. Price reported in favour of Mr. Barton's?
§ * MR. JACKSONI do not know that that is a proper definition of what occurred; but I have already informed 697 the House in answer to a question put to mo some time ago, that it is a fact that Mr. Barton was a member of the Court which, inquired into the merits of Mr. Price's scheme, and that Mr. Price was a, member of the Court which inquired into the scheme presented by Mr. Barton. But, in each case, these gentlemen were only members of the Court, and it was the Court which decided. I have no doubt that the merits of all the schemes presented were fully discussed.
§ MR. CLANCYIs it not the case that Mr. Price was the only engineer in the one Court, and Mr. Barton the only engineer in the other?
§ * MR. JACKSONI shall not answer that question.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)Does the hon. Gentleman consider that such a system as he has indicated is satisfactory?
§ * MR. JACKSONI believe that every care was taken by the Court to afford every opportunity for a searching inquiry to be made, and that the result was satisfactory.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWill the hon. Gentleman say how much money is to be given to Mr. Price under Mr. Barton's Report, and how much is to be given to Mr. Barton under Mr. Price's Report?
§ * MR. JACKSONI have no knowledge.
§ MR. CLANCYHow long has Mr. Price ceased to be the consulting' engineer of the English Syndicate?
§ * MR. JACKSONI do not know.