CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED. (Hansard, 18 July 1879)

§ MR. VERNER
, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 17, line 12, to 745 leave out the words, "if any," said, that his object in putting it on the Paper was to ask the House to accept it in the interests of a number of the employés of the Newry and Armagh Railway Company, whose position was destroyed by the passing of this measure. An agreement for amalgamation had been entered into by the Great Northern of Ireland and the Newry and Armagh Railway Companies, and the object of the Bill was to give a Parliamentary sanction to the agreement for the fusion of the two undertakings. Unfortunately, however, that fusion would lead to the dismissal of the employés and servants of the smaller Company; and, therefore, he proposed to amend Clause 14, which, with the words "if any," limited the compensation which was due to the officials of the Newry and Armagh Company, by providing that compensation, not exceeding on the whole the sum of £3,000 be substituted, which would be at the rate of two years' salary or remuneration to each of those officers, computed according to the amount paid for the year ending 31st December last. As a matter of fair play they were entitled to some compensation, and no one doubted the justice of their claims; but, unfortunately, the Rules and Standing Orders of the House threw some difficulty in the way, and they were thus prevented from having their just claims placed before the Committee to which the consideration of the Bill had been referred. That Committee had given the Bill great consideration; but, still, as these men could not come before them to establish their claims, it might be said it had not received all the consideration it deserved. It was clear that, bad it not been for the energy displayed by the servants of the Newry and Armagh Company, the line would have been extinct many years ago. They had succeeded in bringing it to such a condition that the directors and shareholders were able to make a very profitable, or, at all events, a very fair bargain with the Great Northern Company; but he was given to understand that the directors of the Newry and Armagh Company, in apportioning the purchase-money, did not propose to give any of it in compensation to those who had been for some time past their honest servants, save in one instance—that of Mr. Fearnley, the secretary of the Newry and Armagh Railway, 746 who was to get the small sum of one year's salary. The employés of the Newry and Armagh Company had not received any advances from the Great Northern Company to take them into their employment, nor had they had any consideration from their own directors. They would, therefore, be cast on the world without the means of earning their bread; and everybody knew that in these depressed times, especially in Ireland, it would be very difficult for these men to obtain employment similar to that in which they had hitherto been engaged. He believed that nearly every Railway Company in Ireland was well supplied with servants; and, therefore, did not require the men who were to be discharged from the Newry and Armagh Line. He thought it was a great hardship to them that they should, at what he might call a moment's notice, be thus thrown adrift upon the labour market, which, in Ireland, was overcrowded, so that it was hard for them to obtain fresh work. It was possible the Great Northern Company might give them something to do further on; but, in the meantime, they had sent in a petition to their own directors, but be regretted to say that the petition had not been favourably entertained. In all previous amalgamations the interests of the officers and servants of the disestablished Company had been considered; but, in this instance, the directors had virtually refused to give any compensation to their employés, and hence it was he moved the Amendment, in order to allow of the directors doing justly by their servants, and to obtain an expression of opinion on the part of the House, to the effect that justice had hardly been done to the claims of the employés. It did not follow that, because all of the employés might not have been a long time in the service, there were not a large number deserving of compensation for the loss of their position, and he could not see why they should be shut out from obtaining it.

§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID
imagined that, as Chairman of the Committee 747 which sat on the Bill upstairs, it became his duty to say that it would be wrong for the House to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Verner). He understood, when the Bill for the amalgamation of the two undertakings was considered by the Referees, the servants of the smaller Company—the Newry and Armagh—which was, practically speaking, nearly bankrupt, petitioned to be allowed to appear before the Committee in order to endeavour to obtain compulsory compensation upon their discharge from the various offices they had held. Their locus standi was disallowed. Subsequently, application was made to him, as Chairman of the Committee, to insert in the Bill some such clause as the hon. Member had upon the Paper. It appeared to him, however, that, first of all, he would be going far beyond his province as Chairman in proposing, and, in the second place, that the Committee would go far beyond the practice of Committees in inserting, such a clause. Besides that, it also seemed to him that, upon general principles, such a proposal was objectionable, and that to have accepted it would have been to establish an injurious precedent. The hon. Member now proposed that every officer of the Newry and Armagh Company, whatever be the length of time he had been engaged in their service, should have compensation at the rate of two years' salary, besides six months' notice to quit. To lay down such a general principle upon a bare statement of facts like that just made by the hon. Gentleman would be to establish a very injurious precedent. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had made some inquiry on the subject, and he could not find any precedent for such action. The words in the clause of the Bill, as it now stood, were the correct ones—namely, that the Company should take over the business of the other Company, and— Shall be liable for any retiring allowances and for any compensation, if any, which may be due to their officers and servants. He did not think they ought to say that the large compensation should be due which the hon. Member desired to establish. He was told that several servants had only been a few months in the employ of the Company, and these would come under the operation of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. He 748 did not think the House of Commons would say that any such proceedings could possibly be allowed; and, therefore, he considered it his duty to ask the House to resist the Amendment.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
likewise regarded it his duty to object to the Amendment. There was no justice whatever in giving compensation to officers, when two railways were being amalgamated by their own consent. It was clearly to the advantage of the shareholders of the Newry and Armagh Company that they should be amalgamated; and, therefore, their servants had no claim upon the Great Northern Company.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
said, he would not have risen to make any observations on the subject, had it not been for certain remarks made by the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid), who was Chairman of the Committee. The hon. Baronet had spoken of the Newry and Armagh Company as bankrupt. That was hardly borne out by the facts, seeing that the Great Northern was about to pay the shareholders £2 10s. per share, and pay off, at the rate of 20s. in the pound, all their debts and equitable liabilities. The hon. Baronet, who, no doubt, referred to the earlier difficulties of the Company, would not, he presumed, question this explanation, for if the Company was really insolvent the shareholders should not receive back any of their capital.

§ MR. RAIKES
remarked, that the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Verner) was good enough to call his (Mr. Raikes') attention to the matter yesterday. There could be no doubt that the House was always anxious that no servant should suffer in consequence of an amalgamation; yet, at the same time, the House well knew, from what had been said, that they would be departing from precedent if they were to accept the present Amendment. In the case of any public undertaking, which was purchased by, or amalgamated with, a large public corporation, provision was frequently made for compensation to the officers of the disestablished Company. But the present Bill contained a provision which was sufficiently strong in that respect, inasmuch as it was recited that any compensation or retiring allowances which were due should be paid by the Company which took over the smaller Company. 749 His hon. Friend, however, proposed that the House should specify the precise amount of that compensation. To adopt such a course would be very dangerous. Several of the officers might only, as the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had said, have been in the service of the Newry and Armagh Company for a very short time, and, therefore, were certainly not entitled to anything like the compensation proposed. That being so, he thought it would be desirable to leave the Company to do justice to the servants; and he was disposed to think that the Great Northern Company would act liberally, because he was given to understand that they had adopted a more liberal scale of compensation than was generally adopted. Under all the circumstances of the case, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment to a Division.

MR. DE LA POER BERESFORD
thought that the servants of the Newry and Armagh Company had strong claims upon the directors of the Great Northern Company, and the directors themselves acknowledged this claim, because, in a clause in the Bill, they agree to pay all retiring allowances and compensation to their officers and servants. Speaking from his own experience, he could say that these men were most efficient; and, at the present time, it would be a very great and severe trial upon them to be turned out of their employment, which many of them had enjoyed for a considerable time. He had pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, that both in the interest of the Railway Company and the borough of Armagh, it was well that the Newry and Armagh Line should be amalgamated with the Great Northern. He would not advise the House to depart from precedent by adopting a proposal such as the present. He could hardly help thinking that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. De La Poer Beresford) had the interest of his political supporters in that city at heart, in supporting the Amendment in the way he had.

MR. DE LA POER BERESFORD
replied, that the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) was completely in error. Every one of those men voted against him at the last Election.

§ MR. BIGGAR
opposed the Amendment. The Great Northern Company 750 had given the full value for the railway, as awarded by the arbitrators, and why they should be asked, in addition, to pay compensation allowances to the servants, he could not conceive. He trusted the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Verner) would not put the House to the trouble of dividing. These men were sure to obtain employment if their services were of any value.