CLASS I.

HC Deb 12 March 1891 vol 351 cc831-58

2. Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £136,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for Expenditure under The Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889,' and upon certain Railway Works not yet included in that Act.

(9.50.) MR. J. MORLEY

Now that the first Vote is passed, I wish to call the attention of the Committee to a matter on which I put a question to the Secretary to the Treasury last year. I then asked the right hon. Gentleman for copies of the bargain or arrangement that was made for the construction of the Connemara Light Railways between the Treasury and the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland. I did not then understand the answer given, nor have I been better able to understand it since from any information I have been able to gather. The Chief Secretary himself told us that there was to be a competition between promoters. He said that it was not intended by the Light Railways Bill to exclude private promoters, but merely to enable public companies to carry out the schemes of the private promoters. Now I should like to have from the Secretary to the Treasury a clear account of what actually took place between the Treasury and the Midland Great Western Company. In a passage of the speech of the Chairman of that company to the shareholders on the 12th August last, there occurred what everybody who heard of it at the time, and everybody who has heard of it since, regard as a very remarkable statement. Sir R. Cusack said— The entire sum for constructing these two lines from Galway to Clifden, and from Ballina to Killala, will amount to something like £314,000, without ever paying one single penny of dividend on it. There will be no debenture stock issued to cover it, no preference stock issued, no original stock. We shall not pay any interest on the loan. Every penny that we get will go into the pocket of the company, and I trust will largely add to our dividend. Now, if that is a complete account of the transaction, what is happening is this: that a large sum of public money which has been voted by Parliament has been handed to the Midland Great Western Company in connection with the construction of the lines, and out of that money the company will naturally expect to make, and, in fact, have announced that they will make, a consider able addition to their annual dividend. I wish, therefore, to know from the Secretary to the Treasury what the real terms of the bargain were, and whether any chance has been given enabling private promoters to compete with one another, so as to bring down the cost of construction, or whether an extravagant amount has been given to the Midland Great Western Company without any advantage accruing to the taxpayer in consequence. That is the point I put to the Secretary to the Treasury, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the lines for the construction of which agreement has been made with the Midland Great Western Company have been started under what he calls preliminary contracts, with the object of employing labour at the earliest possible moment on the works. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain what he means by preliminary contracts, to which the Chief Secretary also referred in his opening speech to-night. Then the Secretary to the Treasury went on to say that— He understood that the company was about to invite tenders from a considerable number of selected firms for the final contract. What is the difference in terms between the preliminary contract and the final contract; and, next, have tenders been invited from a considerable number of selected firms, or has the Midland Great Western Company been allowed to carry out the details of the final contract according to their own intentions and designs? Now, I observe in the contract made with the company that the ordinary clauses of forfeiture on non-conclusion of contract have not been inserted, and I do not see that the Government have taken powers, in case they are dissatisfied with the execution of any portion of the work, for executing the works themselves at the expense of the company. That is yet another point that demands explanation. As it is, the transaction certainly looks one of the most dubious and un business-like proceedings that I have ever known, even in Irish administration, and I ask for an explanation—first, of the preliminary contract, then what is the relation between preliminary and final contracts; whether private promoters are at any point invited to compete, or whether the whole transaction has been a close one; and, finally, whether, close or open, it has had the effect of handing over to a Railway Company a large sum of money voted by Parliament.

(9.57.) COLONEL NOLAN

I do not profess to know the details of a great number of the items in this list of railways, but I know very well the details and the circumstances surrounding the larger railway—that between Galway and Clifden. I have always supported the Government in this question of light railways, and have addressed some complaints to them on the subject, but those complaints have always been that they have not gone far enough. They are doing a good work in opening up these western districts, which hitherto have had a lower civilisation than the rest of Ireland. They have always been in a chronic state of poverty and distress. As to the question of the dividends that may accrue to the Midland Great Western Railway Company, I confess I do not attach as much importance to it as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. The hon. Member for Longford opposed all the railways of this kind, and he did this so persistently that the struggle lasted till 5 o'clock in the morning; but it was pointed out that although the action of the Government in giving the Galway line to the Midland would entail an expense of £30,000 to the county, the Government had done it to a great extent to please the hon. Member for Longford, who had said there ought to be a broad gauge instead of a narrow gauge. On the broad gauge being conceded the hon. Member for Longford withdrew his objections. Since then the position of County Galway has very much improved, because instead of having to pay £30,000, the Government has to pay it. Consequently, Galway is placed in a much superior position to that in which it stood before, when it was only offered a narrow gauge line, with a large liability attached to it.

*THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,) Leeds, N.

I am extremely glad to have the opportunity of answering the question which the right hon. Gentleman has asked so fairly. It is an important question, because it ought to be made clear what the arrangements have been with the Midland Great Western Railway Company. In answering a former question I did not quite catch the right hon. Gentleman's meaning. The right hon. Gentleman confused me, because he spoke of competition between promoters, not between contractors. They who were spoken of as promoters were those who went to the Grand Jury for the presentment. In this case there happened to be promoters who had gone to the Grand Jury and got a presentment. These promoters I am afraid I confused with the Midland Great Western Company, who subsequently became promoters and subsequently got their presentment. At that time I could not see how there could have been competition between promoters, because there was no competition between promoters, and that was what my answer was intended to convey. The point now raised is whether there would be, or there has been, any competition as regards the construction of the works. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted a statement made by the Chairman of the Midland Great Western Company in August, 1890. At that time, no doubt, the Chairman might have been under the impression that the £314,000 which he spoke of was a sum which would construct and complete the two lines from Galway to Clifden and from Ballina to Killala. In that statement he also spoke hopefully of the prospect of earning dividend from that outlay. It is not surprising that the Chairman should be hopeful as regarded the dividend to be earned by his company from this expenditure. As to the prospects of earning a dividend from the working of the line from Galway to Clifden, it must be remembered that it would become a feeder to the company's system. So far as the Government contribution went, whether the Government had given it to the construction of a line to be made by the Midland Great Western Company or by any other company, the result would be the same as far as that company is concerned, namely, that they would have an increase of dividend without expenditure of money, and in consequence of the expenditure of money by others. At a meeting held in February last the Chairman of the company said there seemed to have been a misapprehension of what he had said as to how they were getting this money. It had been inferred that they were to get the money at once and to put it to their own account without any supervision whatever; but such was not the case, because the Board of Works would see that the work was done by the contractors and that the money was properly spent. He added that they had invited tenders for one line and would invite them for the other. This coincides with what the Chairman of the company said to me when the agreement was made with the Treasury. As to the preliminary contracts, the Chief Secretary is anxious that the work should be commenced at as early a date as possible. At the time the agreements were made plans and drawings had not been got out, and therefore it was not possible to invite tenders. After much consultation plans were agreed upon, under which the Midland Company made a preliminary contract with a contractor on a schedule of prices for doing certain portions of earthwork in preparation for the line, and so employing a large amount of unskilled labour. The works on the line have been progressing under this preliminary contract, and in the meantime plans and specifications for the works have been in course of preparation. The Board of Works have nothing to do with the preparation of the plans and the drawings, but the plans have to be submitted to them and approved by their engineer, and the works have to be completed to their satisfaction. While these plans have been in preparation tenders have been invited for the Westport and Mulranny line, and one has been accepted, and I anticipate that before long the company will be in a position to invite tenders for the Galway and Clifden line. I have made clear what is the difference between the preliminary contracts and the complete contract. The former is a schedule of the rates and prices per yard, and is for work which could be done by unskilled labour; and so soon as the complete plans and specifications can be made, tenders will be invited to complete the works. Since that time further information has been obtained as to what may be the possible cost of the lines, because the Midland Company have made their statement to the Grand Jury, and subsequently they obtained from the Privy Council their Order in Council for the making of the lines. An estimate was presented to the Grand Jury of the estimated cost of the works, and I find that instead of £314,000, as named in the first statement, the cost will be £373,000 and some odd hundreds. I am afraid that this is not a novel experience; and though these estimates have been exceeded, I do not say for a moment that the increased amount is for work identical with that to which the first estimate applied, bacause the first estimates were by the promoting company, who, without capital or security at their back, could not have undertaken to execute these works. We have preferred to adopt the plan, and we have adopted it throughout wherever it has been possible of working through the existing companies; or if we had proceeded with the promoting company, that company would have required a working agreement in perpetuity with the existing companies for the working of their line. The arrangement made with the Midland Great Western as to the Galway and Clifden lines was an arrangement under which the Treasury agreed to contribute £5,500 per mile. I confess I never believed the line could be made for that sum; nor do I think the Chairman of the company anticipated otherwise than that he would have to make some further contribution for the construction of the line. With regard to the security taken by the Government for the due expenditure of the money, I may say that all expenditure has to be vouched expenditure. I do not expect that we shall be called upon to pay a less amount than the total sum we have agreed to pay. Our contribution is not nearly the whole cost of the line, and, therefore, if the Midland Great Western for its own purposes is prepared to spend £100,000 or £140,000 in excess of the Government contribution on the three lines for which agreements have been made, I think that is the best possible security that the Government can have that the line will be constructed in the cheapest possible way, coupled with efficiency. I think we may rely that a great Railway Company like the Midland is not likely to spend any money of its own unless it be absolutely necessary for the purposes of making a good line; and our object all the way through has been to endeavour to make efficient lines that will give satisfaction.

MR. J. MORLEY

What is the estimate per mile now?

*MR. JACKSON

I am afraid the estimate is more now. The line, I believe, has been a little shortened, because there have been fresh surveys. The estimated cost of the Killala line is £65,937, to which the Treasury have agreed to contribute £44,000. The estimated cost of the Westport and Mulranny line, in connection with which there are heavy engineering works, including a viaduct, is £191,000, to which the Treasury contribute £131,400. The Clifden line, which has been given at 48 miles, and is now a little shortened, will cost £307,500, towards which the Treasury contribute £264,600. The total, estimated cost is£564,500 in round figures, towards which the Treasury have agreed to contribute £440,000. I think that is the best security we can have that the Midland Company will bring all their energy, experience, and skill to construct the line as cheaply as possible, because they will be saving their own money. I may say that the agreements were carefully drawn by competent counsel, and I think there is-not much likelihood of the Midland Great Western Company doing anything to forfeit their contract. Their whole resources are responsible for the work, and I think, therefore, as far as we are concerned, we have no need for a single moment of anxiety that any difficulty will arise. The right hon. Gentleman will see by the Order in Council that the Midland Company have taken power to raise £100,000 in capital towards the expenditure which will become necessary on these lines, and that, of course, goes to confirm the figures and estimates I have already given. I hope I have satisfied the House that we shall not be running any risk, and that the agreement will prove satisfactory as regards the construction of the line. If any gentleman thinks the proportion we contribute is too large, I have a complete answer to give. It would have been impossible to have had the line constructed for less money by anybody else, and therefore there was no option. I do not know whether hon. Members desire that the whole of the charge should fall on the barony, because that is exactly what would have happened if we had not adopted this course. I am quite satisfied that the arrangement we have made is best in the interests of the Government, of the district, and of the Treasury—best in the interests of the Treasury because we have made a contract with a responsible company, who are bound to complete for the sum we have agreed to pay; for we are certain that we shall meet with no excess on these estimates. I think that in itself is a very great advantage so far as the Government is concerned. I am not prepared' to deny—in fact, I admit at once—that the Government have dealt with this question of railways in a broad, liberal, and even expensive way, but I maintain that it was the truest economy to make bargains with responsible companies, so that they would be certain to be carried out, because if arrangements had been made with companies promoted without capital, and they had failed to complete the work, then the Government would in the ordinary way have been called upon to complete. It may be said that the barony would have been called upon to complete, but the barony to be charged is not a rich one and has large arrears of rates, and I have seen sufficient of Irish companies and Irish works and arrangements made with Irish Local Authorities to satisfy me that the arrangement made in this case was the best in the interest, not only of the district, but in the interest of economy. I should like to take this opportunity of saying one word with regard to the Board of Works. I think it is only right that I should say that all through these negotiations there has been put upon the Board of Works a pressure of work most unusual and very trying. I had an opportunity during nearly seven weeks of what I ought to call my vacation, while I was superintending the negotiations for these agreements, of seeing the pressure that has been put upon the Board, and I am bound to express my sense of gratitude to them for the able and competent manner in which they have carried out all details. It was new work, done under great pressure of time, and I may say that it is a result of the policy of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary that we have been able to use these works in aid of giving employment which otherwise would have had to be given independently, and to be provided at considerable cost without producing such good work. I feel bound, therefore, to express my thanks to the Board of Works.

(10.34.) MR. J. MORLEY

I am sure that we all agree that the right hon. Gentleman has devoted himself to these works with ability and in a spirit of self-denial, but I submit that if parlia- ment had known at the time the money was about to be voted that it was to be given to a Railway Company without competition, in fact that the terms were to be dictated by the company itself, the House would have thought twice before sanctioning any such proposal. The Government did not put that proposal rightly before us. It was distinctly expressed that there was to be competition, and it stands to reason that unless there was to be competition the bargain was sure to be an extravagant one; and I do not blame the Railway Company. The right hon. Gentleman admits that the terms made by the Government are broad, liberal, and expensive, and, for my own part, I maintain that the more they are scrutinised, the more plain will it become that they are even excessively extravagant, and that a more unbusiness-like transaction was never entered into. We do not know how the sum to be handed over to the Midland Company was arrived at; it was simply and solely on the demand of that company, and has not in any way been tested by competent persons.

*MR. JACKSON

I ought to have mentioned that a Court of Inquiry has been held in each case under competent authorities, whose duty it was to check the estimates, and we have also had the estimates of the Board of Works checked by the most competent engineers.

MR. J. MORLEY

May I ask whether any sort of change has been made in the estimate as the result of this inquiry?

*MR. JACKSON

It was enlarged.

MR. J. MORLEY

Was the Report of the Commissioners submitted to the Board of Works, and examined and passed by them?

*MR. JACKSON

Certainly.

MR. J. MORLEY

At all events, it appears that the estimate fixed by the Railway Company was accepted by the Board of Works and the Treasury without alteration.

*MR. JACKSON

We found that the bargain was the best we could make, after the most careful inquiry into the whole matter.

MR. J. MORLEY

Now we understand. What has happened is this: Towards undertakings, which will cost £564,000, the Treasury are going to contribute £440,000. That sum of £440,000 is, in fact, given over to the Railway Company by way of free gift. Why have the Government done that? Surely it is not the ordinary way of proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman says that we shall get a good strong line of 5ft. 3in. gauge. But is a 5ft. 3in. gauge required? I have heard a good deal about light railways, but I have never understood that a 5ft. 3in. railway was a light railway. The Government ought to have put the work up to tender before giving it to the company, but instead of doing that they have practically accepted the terms of the Midland Great Western Company. I submit that what I said in January, i.e., that the Government had allowed that company to dictate terms which are excessively severe for an article which is not what Parliament has expected, and which we have not bargained for, is correct. Then what security have we that the Midland will not throw this line on our hands?

*MR. JACKSON

They have undertaken to work it in perpetuity.

MR. J. MORLEY

Under what penalties? I maintain we have no assurance against that line being given up, and I submit that the Government ought not to have given this sum of £440,000 in the way they have done.

(10.43.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the Debate we had upon this question of light railways in 1889. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is a new policy to get the great Railway Companies to work one of these lines; not only is it not a new invention, but it is part of the policy of the Act of 1889, and it is the point on which, for my own part, I think the policy of the Government is incomparably in advance of anything which has been done by their predecessors. I observe that there is not a single Irish Member in the House, except the hon. and gallant Member for Galway.

DR. TANNER

Order, order! I am here.

An hon. MEMBER

There are four.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

With the exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, there is not any one present, as far as I know, who represents any county which is interested in these lines, and the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway is that the arrangement is the only tolerable one. The accusation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite has been that we have given too much, not to the County of Galway, but to the Midland Great Western Company. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the history of these light railways. If anything has been brought home to the mind of any one who has studied the question of these Government subventions, it is that any county is only too delighted to enter into any bargain to pay the difference between the traffic receipts and the costs of management in order to get a railway made, but when it is constructed they grumble at the county cess they have to pay; there have been, and I fear there may be again, difficulties in this respect. The moral of that is not to have a county cess to make up the working expenses of the line, but a responsible Railway Company whom it will pay to have the branch line. Then the railway system will be self-supporting and on a business basis. The right hon. Gentleman seems to look forward to a time when the Midland Great Western Railway will repudiate its obligations. He might as well expect the North-Western or the Great Northern Company in England to repudiate their obligations. It would be just as absurd. But with a small promoted company managing its finance somehow in London and getting a guarantee to make, up any deficiency there is no security that the line will be made, or, when made, that it will be worked. Even if it is worked, it may be found that the big company on which the branch line depends will not do its best to promote the interests of the branch line; and then the Treasury will again find itself in the position it is to-day, of being the owner of some miles of derelict railway, from which the rails have been dragged up from time to time, and constituting a sort of monument to the incompetence and folly of the arrangement under which the line was constructed. It may be a debatable question whether Parliament ought to make these great subventions for the construction of railways in the poor districts of Ireland; but Parliament has deliberately adopted this policy, and I am perfectly certain that the only way of carrying it out with safety to the taxpayer, and to the locality, is to insure that the line shall be worked by a responsible company. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle seems to suppose that the Treasury could have had better terms from another company. There is no evidence of that. A saving of £10,000 on the whole amount might have been effected if a narrow gauge railway had been constructed. But how would such a railway have worked in connection with the Great Midland system? Every truck of goods from Galway to Clifden would have had to be transshipped. To get for merely an extra £10,000 a broad-gauge line worked by a responsible company, instead of a narrow gauge line worked by an irresponsible company, is the best bargain the House of Commons has ever made. If the right hon. Gentleman will examine in cold blood the transaction, which, perhaps, only my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury with his great knowledge of railway affairs in England could have carried through so well—transactions which I wish to say I heartily endorse—he will find that no better transaction for the locality or for the Treasury was ever entered into in the long history of Irish loans.

(10.50.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

The first contention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle was that railways which are called in this scheme light railways are not accurately described. I think we have just cause of complaint on that ground. I might have had no desire to complain of the making of light railways, and so have stayed away from this House to-night. Yet now we are being asked to vote money for works not correctly described. The Chief Secretary, in answer to my right hon. Friend, says the policy of the Government in having heavy lines is a wise one. But surely light railways would have suited just as well, and have been less expensive. Take the County of Donegal, the Stranorlar or Glenties line; or take the Killybegs line. I am told that at Killybegs there are about 200 people. Surely their requirements would have been amply met with a light line.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Both the lines named are light lines.

MR. LABOUCHERE

And yet the right hon. Gentleman said it was preposterous to make a light railway.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I said nothing of the kind. What I said was, it would not be wise to have a narrow gauge line running into an ordinary line.

MR. LABOUCHERE

And the right hon. Gentleman admits that the narrow gauge system is working satisfactorily in Donegal. I do not see why you want these expensive lines. The people have not enough to eat, so they are not likely to have any produce to send by train; and they have no money, so they cannot buy things which would have to be brought to them by train. The whole thing is a farce and an absurdity. I have the warmest sympathy with the Irish, and am perfectly ready to give them Home Rule to any extent. One reason for this is that if the Irish do not soon get Home Rule the English people will be left without a shirt to their backs, all their money having been voted in Irish subsidies. It seems to me these Government schemes are only put forward in order to try to induce the Irish to give up their demand for Home Rule. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who come strolling in after dinner intent on voting the money may be impatient, but we intend to have an explanation about every shilling asked for; we intend to protest against this expenditure, and in many cases to vote against it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle complained, in the second place, that the Government had entered into these contracts recklessly. I agree with him. In these arrangements which the Treasury have made the shareholders of the great Irish Railway Companies and not the particular districts are benefited. This is another instance of the Government legislating at the expense of the masses for the benefit of the classes. One day it is the publican, the next the clergy, then the landlord, and now the railway shareholder who are to be benefited at the expense of the English taxpayers. I think that what has transpired to-day thoroughly justified our action in spending a whole night before Christmas in opposing these Bills. The scheme is a thoroughly bad one, and it is perfect hypocrisy to say that it is to give immediate relief to the poor Irish. How many men get employment on these railway works?

*MR. JACKSON

About 8,000,

MR. LABOUCHERE

On the railroads alone?

*MR. JACKSON

Yes.

MR. LABOUCHERE

They receive 10s. to 13s. a week each, so that you are only spending about £40,000 a month out of this £440,000 grant upon the working classes. The rest of the money will go into the pockets of the shareholders, who belong to the classes and not to the masses.

*(11.0.) SIR J. COLOMB

The hon. Member for Northampton has talked about the farce and absurdity of the position taken up by the Government in this matter, but he has himself illustrated the farce and absurdity of a Member discussing a question connected with districts the very names of which he cannot pronounce, and as to which he openly professes utter ignorance. Was it wise and right for the Government to make these arrangements with the great companies or was it not? If I give a short account of one of the railways of which I have intimate knowledge, it will sufficiently explain why I say the Government was absolutely right, in the interest of the district and of Ireland generally, to take the course they did. I speak of the Headfort and Kenmare Railway. For years the district has been trying to get a railway; and as to the question of a light or heavy railway the hon. Member for Northampton cannot have taken the trouble to look at the speech the Chief Secretary made when he introduced the Light Railway Bill. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman distinctly stated that the Bill covered both a 5ft. 3in. gauge and a narrow gauge, and that he proposed to leave it to the discretion of the districts whether they should adopt the 5ft. 3in. or the narrow gauge. The position in regard to the Headfort and Kenmare line was this: The Government gave as a free gift £50,000, and the country guaranteed £60,000 on the security of the county cess; but the condition was most properly imposed that the railway should be worked. It could only be worked by the Great Southern and Western Railway, because there was no fund out of which any other body could provide the rolling stock. An inquiry was held, and it was found that £110,000 would be the cost of the line. We only had that sum, and when that sum was spent the line would not have been worked unless the Great Southern and Western Company approved of it. There was no prospect whatever of our being able to make the line to the certain satisfaction of the Great Southern and Western; and had not the arrangement been entered into with that company, the result would have been that the district would have been saddled with a guarantee of £60,000, and we would have had a railway badly constructed which the Great Southern and Western would not have worked. The money would have been lost, and the district would have been without railway communication. I was a member of the Local Board, and I know there was not a man on the Board that was competent to make a contract to work a railway or to carry out the scheme. The first thing the Board set itself to do was to try to give a high salary to an estimable young gentleman who should act as secretary, but who had no knowledge whatever of railway business. Therefore, it is apparent that unless the Government came to an arrangement, the district was in great danger of spending its money and not getting a railway. It was with the greatest possible satisfaction that everybody, from the parish priest downwards, heard of the determination of the Government to take the matter in hand and deal directly with the Great Southern and Western Company by setting aside the Local Board. If the Government had not taken that course, Parliament would have voted money in vain for this particular line, the money would have been spent, the county would have been saddled with guarantees, and a railway would have been constructed which it was certain the Great Southern and Western Railway would not have been able to work, and the policy of Parliament would have been defeated. Now, however, we have solid guarantees that the line will be properly made, because it is the interest of the Great Southern and Western to make it, the £110,000 which the Board of Inquiry fixed as the amount which ought not to be exceeded will not be exceeded, and the company will be bound to work the line for all time. Therefore, speaking from this particular instance—and I think it is applicable to all other lines—a great benefit and boon has been conferred on these districts, because the districts will get the value of their money, and the people are grateful to the Government accordingly.

*(11.11.) SIR J. SWINBURNE

I agree with the last speaker that the people are very grateful to the Government; if you give people half a million of public money, they ought to be grateful. The Galway district was very poor indeed; if it was not, it would make its own railway. Yet there is to be a broad gauge railway constructed, and in consequence of the reduction of the gradients resolved upon, the engineering works will be enormously increased. The North Eastern, one of the best managed railways in England, made a railway the other day to a sparsely populated district of Northumberland, with a gradient of 1 in 50, but in a poor district in Ireland, where the people will not have the money to pay a third class fare, the gradient is to be reduced to 1 in 60. The Secretary to the Treasury argues that if the line were not broad gauge, the engines of the Midland Company could not run on it, and it would be useless. There is a broad gauge line up to Londonderry, and yet the branch lines running into County Donegal are of narrow gauge. Therefore the argument of the Secretary to the Treasury will not hold good for one moment. This business is a gross job. We are throwing away nearly half a million sterling, for we shall never see the money again, or get any interest upon it. The Secretary to the Treasury says the scheme is not opposed by the Members for Galway. My constituents would not object to be relieved from the public purse. I think the House has been very badly treated, for some months ago we were asked to vote money for light railways, and now we find that one of the railways to be constructed is to be of the most expensive kind.

*(11.15.) SIR J. POPE HENNESSY

I think the greatest credit is due to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for the businesslike proposal he has made to the House. I venture to ask the Chief Secretary to consider the possibility of extending his operations, and at the same time of inducing not only the Midland but the Southern and Western Railway Companies, who will benefit—and nobody objects to it—by these transactions, to reduce their rates both for passengers and goods. For many years—since 1866—there has been before Parliament the proposal that the State should purchase the Irish railways. The time has come, I think, when the Government might consider the question. The two practical questions we should like to see solved are the reduction of the rates and the purchase of the railways.

(11.16.) MR. JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

I was one of the Members who opposed the Light Railways Act; but I confess I am surprised to find to what extent Her Majesty's Government have availed themselves of that Act in order to increase the expenditure. I am not surprised that hon. Members from Ireland should compliment the Government for having spent so much money in Ireland, One of the chief arguments used by Her Majesty's Government when they introduced the Light Railways Bill was that there was to be an addition to the ordinary railway of the country, not in the shape of heavy railways but of light railways, and I am astonished to hear the Chief Secretary ask how is it possible to work a light railway in conjunction with a heavy one? I expected the railways made under the Bill would be practically of the same character as the ordinary railways of Ireland; because if you attempt to work any railway in conjunction with the ordinary railway system, you must make such a line as will not only carry the wagons but the locomotives of the railways with which the line is connected. I, from experience as a railway man, know that General Hutchinson will not pass any line or bridge which he is perfectly sure will not be equal to the strain. Notwithstanding what the Chief Secretary has said the Light Railways Act, which was passed last Session, is nothing more than a misnomer. I scarcely think it was right for the Government to put forward an estimate of £50,000, and then come to the House and ask for a supplementary estimate of £136,200. This is hardly a Supplementary Esti- mate: it is rather a main estimate. It is just in keeping with the action of Her Majesty's Government-, in financial matters, for I have watched their action very closely, and I confess I never place any faith in any of the financial proposals they put before us. The statement, was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that branch railways seldom pay, and I think in the main he is right. In this country, as a rule, such railways do not pay, and I fail to see why we should make any difference between the railways of Ireland and those of England. I have opposed the expenditure of money in connection with the Government of Ireland when that Government is conducted as at present, and I think the only safeguard you can have that such money will be judiciously and carefully expended in Ireland, is to provide for its expenditure by a Government whose interest it is to deal with Ireland alone. I protest against the expenditure of this money in the way proposed by the Government, and I think the Government have no right to enter into contracts which they know exceed the Estimates put before this House, practically, without consulting this House. They have entered into a contract for £564,000, £440,000 of which they have pledged themselves to pay. I cannot conceive what advantage the taxpayers are to get from this expenditure, and I protest most strongly against it. I listened to the speech of the Financial Secretary with great care, and I did not hear one argument which justified the expenditure. I should like to know under what conditions the agreement was made with the Railway Company, and why there was no competition for the contract? I thoroughly agree with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), and I feel so strongly on the matter that I shall not be content unless I give my protest against the Vote by taking a Division.

*(11.24.) MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)

On this question Members who come from Ireland cannot be expected to take the same line as some of the English Members who have spoken. I was one of those Irish Members who at the end of last Session kept the House till very early one morning in oppos- ing the Bill of the Government and I am bound to say I think the course the Government has since taken abundantly justified us in keeping the House up all night on that occasion. We did so because the scheme of the Government in connection with the Galway and Clifden Railway involved a local guarantee. I spend a considerable amount of time almost every week in corresponding with various constituents in different parts of my division who are oppressed by various kinds of local guarantees in connection with railways. There is one guarantee for the Great Northern Railway Company, another for the Midland Great Western, and a third for a special company, which made a light railway under the Act of 1883. In each of these cases the guarantee system has been found to work unsatisfactorily. The local control is not sufficient and the people of the district are dissatisfied. We protested last Session against the Government scheme because it involved a local guarantee. The Government has abandoned that local guarantee, and I think that if, by keeping the House up on the night I speak of, we saved the poor taxpayers of Galway £30,000, we have no reason to be ashamed of ourselves. I have examined with some care the various Provisional Orders made under the schemes of the Government, and I have noticed that in most of them any sort of local control over the companies to which these large grants are given has been abandoned. Under the Act of 1883 there is a system by which the barony elects a certain number of directors of the company. I do not think the local control, thus provided is by any means sufficient or that it works satisfactorily, because the local directors are always swamped by the representatives of the shareholders. It is, however, better than nothing. In the case of the Downpatrick and Ardglass Railway, there is a local guarantee large in proportion to the amount spent on the railway, but there is no sort of provision for representation of the taxpayers on the Board of the Belfast and County Down Railway Company. Many of the people who will be taxed for the construction of this line live in distant parts of the County of Down, and will get no benefit whatever from it. Surely, under these circumstances, the least that could be expected was that some provision should be made for the representation of the locality on the Board of the Company. The question has been raised, whether it is better for these lines to be worked by big or by small companies. I have in my own constituency an example of each system, and I am bound to say, on the merits, that I prefer the system the Government have adopted. The big Railway Company will always get the benefit of a feeder whether it belongs to the big company or not; while I daresay it is possible that the very astute gentlemen who manage the Midland Great Western Railway have got rather the better of the Government in their bargain, on the whole I confess I prefer the system of working these lines in connection with a big Railway Company to that of setting up small companies with expensive offices.

*(11.30.) SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

The hon. Member who has just spoken has expressed his satisfaction that Irish ratepayers are not to be made responsible for the result of this expenditure, and I understand that generally he approves of the policy of the Government. Now, my experience is that when I see Irishmen on both sides agreeing to a Government proposal, I say, "woe to the British taxpayer." Under such circumstances, we may expect the perpetration of jobs; and again I feel inclined to say, "Oh for an hour of the late Mr. Biggar." He was a man who thoroughly understood these things, and was ever ready to expose jobbery in connection with them. It may be a question whether it was better to pay moderate sums for plans never fulfilled or to devote larger sums to construct Irish railways by jobbery. I do say the House of Commons has been misled. Last year the Government made a comparatively moderate proposal, but now they bring forward a much greater scheme, under which these railways will be constructed by the large companies, and five-sixths of the money will be paid by the British taxpayer, for whom there is no prospect of the return of a single farthing. Why are these things done so readily in Ireland as compared with the cautious, hesitating way in which the demands of the Highlands of Scotland are met? The Irish Members are apt at agitation, and can make themselves troublesome and disagreeable, and so these things are sops to quiet them. I deeply regret that the views of the late Mr. Biggar no longer find an exponent. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) does not disguise his satisfaction, and in that satisfaction we see danger to the pockets of the British taxpayer.

(11.33.) MR. LEA (Londonderry, S.)

I do not wish to detain the Committee; but I may explain to the hon. Member for Northampton that Glenties is the most populous of the towns in West Donegal: that is the centre of the stocking knitting industry; that there is a considerable amount of this work done, and there is a difficulty in getting it sent away. For this, among other reasons, there is no doubt that this particular line will be a boon to the people of West Donegal and a national benefit, even though the undertaking may cost the taxpayers something for the time. I am quite sure that the policy of the Government for the relief of Irish distress commends itself to the Irish people whatever their public opinions may be. But I take the opportunity of asking the Secretary to the Treasury why it is that North Donegal has been left out of these advantages? The claims of the districts of Inishboffen and Cardonagh have been urged, but I do not find that they been recognised. As there is no Representative of North Donegal present, and I had the honour of being its Representative in two Parliaments, I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is any prospect of railway works in North Donegal being commenced?

(11.35.) COLONEL NOLAN

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, who, in contradistinction to Irish Members, always makes himself so agreeable in the House, has invoked the memory of our lamented colleague, the late Mr. Biggar, in opposition to these proposals. But Mr. Biggar objected, as his successor in the representation of Cavan has, because they were narrow gauge railways projected. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members who contradict me do not recollect the speeches he made here. I know he also objected to the local guarantee, but now that principle is practically eliminated, or confined to only a few rich baronies. Let me recall to the memory of the Com- mittee what occurred last year when the light railways proposal was before the House. I find it recorded in Hansard that the discussion which commenced at 2 o'clock in the morning with an Amendment of the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) was continued until 5.18, when the hon. Member withdrew his opposition, using these words— Inasmuch, however, as the Government are giving the Galway people a better line than I supposed—that is to say, a heavy broad gauge line—I shall not persist in my opposition, but will leave the Government the responsibility of rejecting my advice. It all turned upon the difference between broad-gauge and narrow-gauge lines, and I think it is rather hard that the Government, having been strenuously opposed because they proposed, narrow-gauge lines, should now be abused because they propose the broad-gauge.

(11.36.) DR. TANNER

Remarks have been made upon the Irish Members praising the Government for what they propose to do. We are doing nothing of the kind. But, of course, we are ready to take from the Government all that we can get. The Government have so bungled Irish affairs as to bring about starvation, and now they must pay for their mismanagement. No gratitude is due from us; and from time to time we have pressed the claims we have on the Government in great emergencies like this. I have pressed the Government for three light railways within my own county; but though they were passed by the Grand Juries, I have only had success in one instance. As to this Galway and Clifden line, I think it will be more satisfactory to have the line worked by a large company, and they will probably manage it better than a small company could; and we have seen so much bungling in tramway administration, that perhaps this offers a better prospect. But, of course, we know that the reason why the Government have made this contract with the Great Western Company is not for the benefit of the people, but that they may be able to put a certain amount of money into the pockets of their political friends the landlords. But, even in this Galway and Clifden line, they have followed the worst course. They should have followed the line of the sea coast tapping the fishing villages and districts where there is most population, instead of carrying the line from Galway to Oughterard across a series of bogs, and adding to the cost of construction. Then take the Westport and Mulranny line. I pressed the Chief Secretary to extend it to Achill, and this has been done at an expense of £8,000; but that line cannot pay unless the Government do more. I endeavoured earlier to press upon the Government the necessity of building piers, and I want to connect the two works—railways and piers. There will be little traffic over the Achill line unless a pier is built. Stopping at a point in Achill Sound is not enough; there is not sufficient traffic to pay. The annual migration of Achill men to find harvest work in England will not assist much. So I must press home the practical importance of piers for creating a fishery traffic. There is no agricultural produce to be sent from Achill. It is a black and barren district, producing no crops beyond a few potatoes and a small quantity of oats to feed a few horses there. Unless you go further and build piers to encourage the fishing there will be nothing for this railway to carry. There is another line—the Baltimore and Skibbereen—a very short line that will certainly, pay, and this for the simple reason that the efforts of the Rev. Father Yates have been successful in establishing a fishing industry at the latter place. I warn Her Majesty's Government that on this western coast piers are required if there is to be any hope of railway traffic. Let them construct these, and in doing so let them not be guided by the advise of engineers from London and Dublin, otherwise we shall have only more monuments of incapacity like Lewisberg Pier in Clewer Bay, which is useless to the inhabitants. I hope the Government will, in addition to these railway works, build piers that the people may have a means of getting the full advantage of the fisheries.

(11.45.) MR. JOICEY

I think hon. Members from Ireland have rather misinterpreted references from this side of the House. I am not surprised that hon. Members advocate the spending of British money in Ireland for any purpose which provides labour for their people. No doubt, if similar expendi- ture were necessary in any of our constituencies, we should support such a proposal in the interest of our constituents. I do not find fault with the action of Irish Members, but I do find fault with the action of Her Majesty's Government, who have proceeded in a most unbusinesslike way. Here is a sum of £560,000 to be spent over one railway, when the impression produced in the House was that for such a sum a complete network of railways might be constructed in Ireland. But a line of 50 miles is to cost £560,000.

COLONEL NOLAN

No, no; not half that.

*MR. JACKSON

I explained just now it was for three railways.

MR. JOICEY

Of what length?

*MR. JACKSON

74 miles in all.

MR. JOICEY

Yes; over £8,000 a mile! I do not think that is the kind of light railway the House contemplated when the Bill was passed. The Government applied to the House for £50,000, not having the slightest knowledge of how they were going to spend it. I gather from what has been said by the Secretary to the Treasury that it was spent in digging here and there, and making plans and sub-sections of the lines. But everyone who has had experience in these matters knows that it is the custom of contractors to take contracts for the whole of the work. The whole of the proceedings of the Government have been most unbusinesslike, and I feel this so strongly that, by way of protest, I move the reduction of the vote by £1,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That £135,200 be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Joicey).

*(11.49). MR. CRAIG (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

As one who spent a great deal of time on the Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce in 1889, when the Bill known as the Light Railway Bill was sent to it; as one of those who remembers how a measure of 21 pages was reduced, by a series of very clever tactics and artifices, to three or four pages; as one of those also who remembers the significance attached to the words light railways in those days, I confess I am surprised that those who sit on the Treasury Bench should tell us that in- cluded in the meaning of the term "light railway" is a line with a gauge of 5ft. 3in. I am certain from my knowledge of the proceedings of that Committee, from which I was never absent for a moment, not even when Ministers reinforced their own strength and when pressure was applied such as had never been applied to a Standing Committee before, and I hope never will again—such pressure as was made matter of comment in the House and observation by the highest authority—these matters should be brought to the remembrance of the House that the House may see how, to use a sporting phrase, we have been "jockeyed" for the sake of getting the British taxpayers money for—I will not say nefarious purposes, for the House has sanctioned it—but by a series of artifices we who are here to watch the administration of the national funds have been deceived, and this by gentlemen who call themselves Unionists. [Interruptions.] They obtained the wretched little Bill of 1889 for Light Railways, and now they come and tell us that means a line of 5 feet 3 inches. [Interruptions.] Yes, this may be a laughing matter to the Government and their supporters. We have been told, in reference to one line, there are no funds but there are promoters. No capital but a promoter. Yes, that is just the point, there are promoters—[Interruptions]—but where does the money go? Does it go to the assistance of distressed people? Precious little of it. One hon. Member has advocated the construction of a line because it will increase the wages of his constituents by 2s. 6d. a week, but is that a sufficient reason to satisfy the representatives of English, Scotch and Welsh taxpayers? Are they to provide the money for such a line as that the late Mr. Biggar mentioned—where the engine, being unable to pull the train up an incline, the passengers got out and tried to push it. [Interruptions.] It is very funny, no doubt, that the money of British taxpayers should be expended in this way. The money goes into the pockets of promoters, and promoters can afford to smile. Why are we called upon to provide money for these railways when the Act relates to light railways? What is the definition of a light railway?

*MR. JACKSON

A light railway as I should have thought the hon. Member would have informed himself from the proceedings before the Committee, may include a railway which may be 5 feet 3 inches.

*MR. CRAIG

I have no hesitation in giving an emphatic contradiction to that statement. I have practical experience in these matters. The normal gauge of English railways is 4 feet 8½ inches, and beyond that the line is known as a broad railway. The right hon. Gentleman has no practical acquaintance with these matters, and has been led into the use of misleading terms. A light railway means, light rails and narrow gauge, light work and a light engine to run upon it. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Act of 1889 he will find that a light railway is defined as including a tramway, did the right hon. Gentleman ever hear of a tramway 5 feet 3 inches? The term tramway was included, so that part of the money might be used for carrying out the object of the Tramways Act of 1883. The whole proceedings in Committee was misleading in the highest degree, and I say they were intended to mislead [Interruptions.] I know the facts, but hon. Gentlemen do not; and I shall not change that opinion. There were 24 pages of clauses, and when we got into Committee 21 of these were torn out. [Cries of "Divide!"] Yes, I will divide the Bill; I will show how the 21 pages were divided from the Bill as it was sent to the Committee. These pages contained safeguards, introduced, as we were told, by the Treasury to protect the pockets of the taxpayers. [Interruptions.] As representing the British taxpayers, I do not intend, on a matter of this importance, to be roared down at this time of night. Two sub-clauses took the place of these 21 pages. First, there was a proposal for dealing with companies that were solvent, solid, and substantial, which occupied three pages of matter.

It being Midnight, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business.

MR. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

(12.0.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 49.—(Div. List, No.83.)

Question put accordingly, "That £135,200 be granted for the said service."

(12.15.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 152.—(Div. List, No. 84.)

MR. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."

Original Question put accordingly.

(12.25.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 150; Noes 40.—(Div. List, No. 85.)

Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.

Committee to sit again to-morrow.