POWERS OF GRAND JURY TO GUARANTEE.

HC Deb 17 August 1883 vol 283 cc977-1015

Clause 1 (Grand Jury may present in favour of baronial guarantee).

MR. LEA

, in rising to move, after the word "any," in line 7, the insertion of the words "narrow gauge Railway or," said, he had taken a somewhat strong view of the benefits which were likely to accrue in the West of Ireland if this Bill were passed; and, therefore, in order not to retard its progress, he would confine what he had to say to the fewest possible words. He did not know whether the Government would be able to assent to the proposal he made or not; but there were two reasons why he had placed it upon the Paper. If the Bill was to be effective at all, it must provide for the construction of something better than a tramway running alongside the roads in the county of Donegal. He was told that there were provisions in the measure which authorized the compulsory purchase of land; and as it would be necessary, in many instances, to make wide deviations from the high road, in that case it would amount, practically, to the making of a narrow gauge railway. If the right hon. Gentleman told him that the object he had in view was already included in the Bill he should certainly not press the Amendment too strongly upon the Committee; but he should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could accept the words he proposed.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, after "any," insert "narrow gauge Railway or."—(Mr. Lea.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, that, since the Bill had been introduced, representations had been made to the Government as to the desirability of extending its provisions so as to cover the case of narrow gauge railways, or what were known as "light railways." As the Bill stood, it was possible that it did not go so far; but hitherto there had been no definition in any Statute of what a tramway was, and a tramway might be a railway, or a railway might be a tramway. The Bill contained no provision in regard to a limit of deviation, and it repealed part of the Tramways (Ireland) Act of 1860, by which means it would have the effect of giving compulsory powers to take land wherever it was necessary to do so for the purposes of the Act. The construction of lines, even in places not in the immediate vicinity of public roads, might be involved under the Bill, inasmuch as it might be a necessary portion of the tramway scheme to work the line by steam power; and it was not, in the opinion of the Government, very important whether the provisions of the Bill were carried out by a tramway or a railway. But in the Acts of Parliament, called Tramway Acts, a tramway was spoken of, and not a railway; and he proposed to extend the definition to railways, so that by the term both tramways and light railways might be included. He thought the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea) would be obtained best by the introduction of a definite clause at the end of the Bill, declaring that in this and other Acts of Parliament the word "tramways" should be taken to include a light railway. If the term "light railway" was not a sufficient definition, he would undertake to bring in words on the Report to carry out the object his hon. Friend had in view. He hoped this assurance would be satisfactory.

MR. BIGGAR

wished to state the reason which induced him to propose the Amendment which stood in his name. He presumed the object of the Government was to make the Bill as successful as possible; but although he entertained objections to the measure, if the Bill was to be of any service at all, it should be so framed as to give some assurance of success. The Amendment proposed to include narrow gauge railways as well as tramways; but there would be great disadvantage in constructing a railway as compared with a tramway. In the case of a tramway they would pay nothing for the land, because the tramway would run over the public roads; and it would make an enormous difference in the expense of the Company, both in reference to legal proceedings and the obtaining of compulsory powers of purchase, if they were to construct railways. For this reason, he was of opinion that a tramway would be much more preferable than a narrow gauge railway, or any railway at all where it would be necessary to prepare a permanent way. In constructing a permanent way, it would be necessary to make cuttings and embankments, and to incur a large amount of expense. If tramways were to be successful, they must be on the same gauge as tramway lines already existing. He presumed that, as a rule, the tramways would terminate in the neighbourhood of some railway station, and if that were so then the tramways would be able to borrow or hire from the Railway Company all the rolling stock they required; but if a Tramway Company, with a short line, found it necessary to keep up a stock of waggons and a permanent staff, the result would be that all the revenue would be used up in the expense. He certainly thought that no encouragement ought to be given to narrow gauge railways, and that a provision should be inserted in the Bill that in every case where a tramway terminated near a railway station it should be of the same gauge as the railway in connection with which it ran. In that way, no doubt, these tramways might be made of immense value as feeders to the railways, and the railways would in the same way contribute indirectly to the traffic upon the tramways; but to call upon a tramway to keep up a permanent staff of engineers and coach builders, and all the requirements of a Railway Company, must, in his opinion, end in disaster.

MR. LEA

intimated that, after the statement which had been made by the Attorney General for Ireland, he would not press his Amendment.

DR. LYONS

expressed a hope that the Attorney General would take care that the term used in the Bill was such as would put the Tramway Company beyond the possibility of litigation afterwards. Although the term "narrow gauge railway" was very well understood, he was afraid that the term "light railway" might give rise to difficulty.

MR. O'KELLY

said, he hoped the Government would not pay any attention to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons). On the contrary, he thought the definition "light railway" would obviate the difficulty which his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had very properly pointed out. If the definition were made "narrow gauge railway," he (Mr. O'Kelly) thought they would introduce into the future construction of these lines the difficulty which his hon. Friend was afraid of. If the Government accepted the definition "light railway," then the question of gauge could be left to the decision of the people who constructed the line. He had placed an Amendment upon the Paper with a view of providing that the expression should be "light railway;" but as the Government had practically accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea), and were anxious to meet the suggestions which were made, he should not propose his Amendment. he thought the proposal of the Government would meet his views.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he would express a hope that on future occasions the Government would get rid of the word "tramway" altogether, because it was a word that had no definite meaning, and only led to confusion. Since the Bill had been introduced he had been very anxious to find out what the word meant; but he had altogether failed. The Government would be aware that in America it was discarded, and instead of "tramway" the word used was "street railway."

MR. PARNELL

asked the Attorney General for Ireland if he was to understand that the 42nd section of the Tramways Act was repealed by this Bill? As far as he could make out, if that section were not repealed there would be no compulsory powers under the Bill for the purchase of land; and it would be utterly impossible to make "light railways" in the way proposed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, it was proposed to repeal the 42nd section of the Tramways Act; and whether it was called "railway" or "tramway" was a matter of very little consequence.

MR. GIBSON

asked if the Bill placed tramway construction on the same footing as that with regard to railways?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, he was not quite certain what his right hon. and learned Friend meant. Did he mean in regard to legal machinery?

MR. GIBSON

said, he meant the compulsory taking of land.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, that would be precisely the same as under the present Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER) moved, in line 7, after the words "promoters of any tramway," to insert the words "being a public Company." It was not intended that statutory powers to make a tramway, and compulsory powers to take land, should be given to individuals. The Light Tramway Acts conferred powers upon individuals; but it was intended that this Act should apply exclusively to Directors of Public Companies.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, after the word "tramway," insert "being a public Company."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he thought that the grand juries and public authorities would, under the Amendment, be precluded from making tramways; and that, he thought, would be a most unwise provision. He was of opinion that the most economical way of making these tramways would be for the counties to make them themselves. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was afraid that the expense of making and working a tramway or light railway would swallow up all the profits; but if the public authorities or the grand juries were allowed to enter into the contracts, he believed they would not do so unless they felt that they could do the work economically.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he thought the difficulty might be met by allowing persons, whether incorporated or not, to make an application for an Order in Council under the Act.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) was a perfectly novel one. It had never been suggested to the House, and had certainly not been included in any Tramway Act now existing, that the grand juries should have power to undertake works of this kind, which were altogether distinct from their proper functions. The suggestion contained in the Bill was that the powers should be given to the Tramway Company with a Government guarantee. The clause, as it stood, would not meet the case of grand juries or public authorities at all. It provided that it should be lawful for the promoters of a tramway to make application to the grand jury for any county under the Tramway Acts; but it did not give authority to the grand juries to confer such power upon themselves.

MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)

said, that Municipal Bodies and Corporations were entitled to make tramways in districts under their jurisdiction.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, his argument was that the Bill should not exclude these public Bodies; and he thought if they were going to insert the words "public Companies" they should also extend the clause to public Bodies. His suggestion was that they should either leave out "public Company" or add "public Bodies."

MR. DALY

said, he believed that if the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) were agreed to, the whole Bill would be a failure. The grand juries were generally representative men, and ought not, in their individual capacity, to exercise powers of this kind. The proposition of the hon. and gallant Member would not bear the test of examination.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, the object of the Bill was to establish better means of communication. At present, the grand juries made the roads, and the proposal was that they should be able to place lines of railway upon them. He could not for the life of him understand why an individual or a grand jury desirous of making a tramway in the interests of the public should not be at liberty to do so. Why should they be absolutely excluded? The guarantee would be just the same in the case of an individual as in the case of a Company. It was quite possible that there might be individuals willing and able to undertake the work; and he did not see why it should be imperative that the application should only be made by a public Company.

MR. SYNAN

said, it appeared to him that the Attorney General for Ireland was really delaying his own Bill. He thought it would be better to pass the clause in the shape in which it was originally introduced. The words "promoters of any tramway" were quite wide enough. Therefore, cui bono the definition. It was totally unnecessary, and did no good.

MR. KENNY

said, that there was a provision in this Bill enabling a grand jury to take over and carry out works which had failed, and to charge the expenses on the county. If a grand jury were to be allowed to do that, he did not see why it should not be competent to them to construct a line.

MR. CALLAN

said, the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) seemed to think that if the words "public Company" were not inserted it would be open to any swindlers to go over to Ireland and promote a scheme; but the hon. Member must be unaware of the financial history of the country, which showed that all the great swindles had been promoted by public Companies. He himself should have much less confidence in a public Company than in a private individual. The grand jury system was a system which Irish Members had always denounced, and he could not understand why any greater powers should be given to them than they now possessed. He hoped the Government would not, under any circumstances, yield to pressure to give them any powers beyond those contained in the Bill. All the purposes of the Bill would be equally well met if the Attorney General for Ireland did not insist on this addition, but would withdraw the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON

said, he was almost disposed to think the Bill would not pass this Session. Yesterday he thought it would pass, and he hoped it would, for it contained many good things; but this Sitting was now half over, and the Committee were discussing the 1st line of the 1st clause. It was quite clear that unless there was great forbearance on all sides there would not be a shadow of a chance of the Bill passing this year.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the Amendment had been carefully thought over by his right hon. and learned Friend by the light of his experience of tramways and the Tramway Acts; and he considered the Amendment desirable.

MR. O'KELLY

said, these words might include other public Bodies than public Companies, such as Town Councils.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he strongly objected to the suggestion that the grand juries should be asked to take over tramways and to work them. If the promoters found that they were unable to pay the principal and interest and the preliminary expenses of an Act of Parliament, then it might be depended upon that the grand juries would not be more successful. The proposal, in point of fact, amounted to this—that if a line was successful, then the promoters would get all the profit; but if it were not successful, then that somebody else should reap the loss.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, he thought the proposal would involve considerable difficulties, because the County Treasurer and the County Surveyor had certain powers which it would be most undesirable to give to the grand juries in reference to tramways.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HEALY

said, the next Amendment was one in his name, to leave out "grand jury" and insert "Poor Law Guardians." He had put down the Amendment as a protest against the slipshod way in which the Bill had been drawn. The Government did not care to provide any other machinery than that of the grand juries as the easiest way of getting the Bill through the House. The Government admitted that it was their intention to create Local Government Boards; but it would appear that the whole system of local self-government was to be thrown upon the grand juries, and there was no proposal in the present Bill to amend that system. No doubt the Poor Law Guardians had power over a limited area as compared with the grand juries. But what was it the Government were going to do? There might be a proposal to construct a tramway which would run through two or three counties; and in that case there would be just the same difficulty as if they were dealing with two or three different schemes. Take, for instance, a line from Sligo to Bundoran. It would have to run through portions of the counties of Sligo and Donegal, and probably Leitrim, and it might be necessary to consult three Grand Juries. Therefore, as a protest, he would move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, leave out "Grand Juries," and insert "Poor Law Guardians."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'Grand Juries' stand part of the Clause."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, that if the Amendment of the hon. Member were adopted, the machinery of the Bill would necessarily fall to the ground. The hon. Member had suggested an argument which might be carried to a very considerable extent. The Unions were not always coincident with the area of taxation in which it was necessary to raise the guarantee. Unions might extend into two and sometimes three counties; but they had nothing to do with the levy of the rates; and they would be much more non-representative in respect of this Bill than the grand juries. He had already entered at considerable length into this question in reply to the hon. Member on the Motion for going into Committee; but he understood the hon. Member simply to move the Amendment by way of protest. The framers of the Bill had sifted the question carefully, and they had come to the conclusion that where a tramway ran over more counties than one, it would be necessary for the promoters to make their terms with one grand jury after another. It was almost impossible to form any system by which different grand juries could work together; and the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member would necessitate an entire re-modelling of the Bill.

MR. CALLAN

said, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was founded on a real knowledge of the country, much superior to that of the draftsmen of the Bill. The grand juries were not the persons who had to pay the tax; whereas the Poor Law Guardians were constituted one half of magistrates and the other half of ratepayers, the latter being occupiers who were resident, and were required to pay their proportion of the tax. The Poor Law Guardians were also elected, and, being residents, they had a much better knowledge of the requirements of a district than the Grand Juries could have. He knew there would be great difficulty in re-arranging the Bill; but the same difficulty would occur in the case of grand juries where it was necessary to construct a line in two counties. The instance mentioned by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) of the construction of a tramway between Sligo and Bundoran was a case in point. There were only two Unions to deal with, and there would be much less difficulty in dealing with them, than if there were a divided jurisdiction between two or three counties. At the same time, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, as it would necessitate an alteration in the Bill and its entire re-casting. If it were not for that reason, he would certainly recommend his hon. Friend to go to a Division.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, the effect of adopting the Amendment would be, in the case of tramways for a short distance—say four or five miles—to prohibit them altogether, if there were several; jurisdictions to deal with.

MR. HEALY

said, he would allow the Amendment to be negatived.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. BIGGAR moved, in line 9, after "proposed," to insert "one condition being that the trains shall run at least twice each day on every day except Sunday and Christmas Day." He knew that in many parts of Ireland it was not considered necessary to run trains on Sunday, and he had no wish to bind Tramway Companies to do so. The sole object of the Amendment was to secure that the working of the tramways should be bonâ fide. If the Government were going to pay 2½ per cent. it might be said that running a tram once a-week was actually working the line. He thought a Company should be bound to run a tram twice every day at least, once in the morning and once in the evening each way. If that were not done, he thought the intention of the Bill would not be carried out. On the other hand, if a train were only run once a-day in each direction, it would scarcely provide sufficient accommodation for the public, and would not be in compliance with the understanding under which these powers would be conferred.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 9, after "propose," insert "(one condition being that the trains shall run at least twice each day on every day except Sunday and Christmas Day)."—(Mr. Biggar.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had asserted that he was anxious to protect the ratepayers by the present Amendment. What he was really doing was this—imposing on the locality the charge of running two trains a-day, even although one train was amply sufficient for the accommodation of the district. Surely that was not what the hon. Member meant.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER moved, in line 9, after the word "baronies," insert "except the baronies specified in the Schedule to this Act." His object was to except certain specified baronies in the West of Ireland from the provision with regard to guaranteeing baronies." The Committee were not called upon now to determine the extent of the district to be excepted; but, if the Amendment were agreed to, it would be necessary to propose a Schedule in which they would Be sketched out. That, however, would be a matter for subsequent consideration. He reminded the Committee that in an Act passed some time ago the Unions of Swinford, Clifden, Newport, and Oughterard were included and specified in a Schedule. He considered the Amendment to be one of great importance, and for reasons that might be briefly stated. He did not propose to dwell upon the attention of the Committee for a moment beyond what was absolutely necessary. He only wished to say that it was the poorer districts which stood more in need of communication; and there could be no doubt that, so far as public objects were concerned, they would be best served by bringing aid to those districts in the matter of communication as cheaply and rapidly as possible. He ventured to propose the Amendment, in the belief that, in the long run, the Treasury would not be losers. In some of these poorer districts it would be found that the baronies could not conveniently make the sacrifices demanded of them; whereas there was a likelihood that if tramways were made, although they might not be immediately remunerative, in the course of 10 or 15 years the circumstances would be very different, and the utmost advantage would be derived from the tramways constructed. The adoption of this proposal would make a very great difference to the poorer baronies, by enabling them to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after "baronies," insert "except the baronies specified in the Schedule to this Act."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the Government were extremely anxious not to approach the consideration of the Bill in a spirit which could in any sense be called ungracious or arbitrary. At the same time, they did approach this Amendment, which was moved by an hon. Member whose suggestions in all matters relating to the prosperity of Ireland were entitled to respect, because they were always made in a manner most agreeable to the House in which he always brought them forward, with a distinct negative. It would really be a waste of the time of the Committee, if he did not at once state what those proposals were, which under no circumstances the Government could accept. The present proposal of the hon. Member was one for which he allowed there was a great deal to be said; but, on the other hand, it was one which had been considered over and over again by those Members of the Government who had been specially engaged in framing the Bill, because it lay at the very root of the arguments upon which the Bill was founded. The Government had come to the conclusion that it could not ask the taxpayer to extend his obligations further than were contained in the four corners of the Bill. He considered it absolutely essential that for every penny advanced by the general taxpayer on this guarantee the locality should produce, at least, another. To accept the Amendment of the hon. Member would really be to open the door to a proposal altogether inconsistent with this prin- ciple. The hon. Member, later on—he (Mr. Trevelyan) thought he was in Order in referring to the subject—proposed that the Government, in a scheduled district, should guarantee the whole of the money. The proposal of the hon. Member really amounted to this—that the Government should institute a better and more valuable stock than any stock that already existed in the world. The hon. Member said the Schedule would only apply to certain districts. He (Mr. Trevelyan) could only say that if the Government seriously entertained and discussed the proposal now before the Committee, the Schedule the hon. Member proposed to insert would be very much widened; and there would be no Representative of any county in Ireland who would not consider it a matter of honour and duty towards his constituents to insist that his county should be put into that Schedule. What the hon. Member proposed to do was what many counties in England and Scotland would be very glad to do. He (Mr. Trevelyan) himself lived in a county where for 60 miles there was no railway or tramway at all. The district was an agricultural one, in many respects resembling Ireland, and the locality itself was too poor to supply the deficiency. If they could only have a proposal of this kind in a Bill of this nature they would jump at it with alacrity. He could assure the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government dare not from that Bench ask the general taxpayer to make any further concession in this direction.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

was sorry to say that he had not been convinced by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. There might be good reasons for not assenting to the Amendment; but he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman had not stated them in his speech. The Government proposed to give to the poor people of Ireland certain aid, in order to insure their future prosperity; and he believed they could only reach the extremely poor districts by the adoption of some such proposal as this.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, his general argument was that tramways should not be made that could not reasonably be expected to pay, and that wherever tramways could reasonably be expected to pay the locality should be required to put the provisions of the Bill in force. Although it was not necessary to name him, an hon. Gentleman, to whose opinion he attached much weight, and who possessed a considerable amount of knowledge in regard to tramways, having had to do with the working of them, as well as their construction, was of opinion that the Bill would be of considerable advantage, even in the district which the hon. Member took so deep an interest in.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, they were not now called upon to decide whether the Treasury should guarantee the whole 4 per cent. That was not the question before the Committee. The Chief Secretary had somewhat confused the issue in his speech. Later on they would have to determine whether the Treasury should guarantee 3 or 4 per cent, and call upon these poor baronies for 1 per cent. If the Committee agreed to his Amendment, what they would do would be to leave the Committee free to accept the Amendment of which Notice had been given by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. S. Buxton) in reference to the guarantee. It would be utterly impossible to relieve poor districts, unless this Amendment were adopted.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after "dividends," insert "not exceeding four per cent."—(Mr. Lalor.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he could not accept the Amendment, because it might have the effect of rendering the Act inoperative in the poorer baronies. The grand juries must make the bargain, and get the money in the open market.

MR. HEALY

said, he had not seen the Amendment of the hon. Member on the Paper; but he understood that it was of a similar character to one of which he (Mr. Healy) had given Notice in regard to line 21—namely, that the guarantee of the grand jury should not be more than 2 per cent. He should like to know from the Government the grounds upon which they opposed that proposal. He did not know what more the promoters could want than a guarantee of 2 per cent from the State and 2 per cent from the barony; and he thought it was a monstrous thing to leave the grand juries to impose such, a rate of interest as they pleased. The Committee must remember that in this case the tax was not to be divided, as in the case of the poor rate, between the owner and the occupier. It was the unfortunate tenant who would have to pay the whole of the tax, and the landlord none. The proposal contained in the Bill was a most objectionable one, because the landlords who would not pay the tax were, nevertheless, required to fix a rate of interest, and they were to be in a position to guarantee that interest to an unlimited extent, although not one single penny of it, when imposed, would they have to pay. He could not see how the Government could resist this proposal—indeed, he thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) gave the grand juries far too much power. He (Mr. Healy) thought 4 per cent was too extravagant, and his Amendment fixed 2 per cent. which he regarded as a more reasonable figure. Why was the right hon. Gentleman so anxious about the State, and so careless about the cesspayer? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be dreadfully anxious that the British ratepayer should not contribute more than 2 per cent; but he was very careless about the Irish taxpayer, who was to pay an unlimited amount. He (Mr. Healy) should certainly support the hon. Member for Queen's County, if he made the Amendment 2 per cent and went to a Division.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he hoped the Government would give way. It was highly objectionable to give unlimited taxing powers to the grand juries. It was still more objectionable to give these unlimited powers of taxation to the grand juries when it was known that they would have to contribute only a small portion of the money themselves. It might be said that there was a provision in the Bill which allowed only six county cesspayers in any barony to present a petition of appeal to the Lord Lieutenant in Council against the presentation of a grand jury; but it would be impossible for any six cesspayers to get up an organized opposition to the will of the grand jury. It was absurd to suppose that they would incur the expense of an appeal of this kind. When the Chief Secretary introduced the Bill a few nights ago he understood him to say that the amount of the guarantee from the State would be 2 per cent. and that there would also be a guarantee from the ratepayers of the district of another 2 per cent. To show that that was what the right hon. Gentleman intended, the right hon. Gentleman went on to add that the stock would be saleable in the market at a price which would leave a large profit above par. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it would sell for 112 or 116, so that the promoters of any scheme would be well paid if they got a good guarantee from the county of 2 per cent. and also a guarantee of 2 per cent from the State. Two per cent from the State would sell in the market for 60, or a little more, and 2 per cent from the county would sell for 50.

MR. DALY

said, that, if he understood the guarantee of 4 per cent provided by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor), it meant that 4 per cent should be guaranteed by the grand juries. But there were hundreds and thousands of debentures which were sought for with avidity which did not pay 4 per cent; and he thought the hon. Member for Queen's County was perfectly right in proposing to limit the discretion of the grand juries. Certainly, 4 per cent would afford a sufficiently wide margin. The State then came in and reduced the guarantee by 2 per cent. leaving the tax on the ratepayers only 2 per cent.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that, in the richer baronies, where the credit was good, no doubt 4 per cent would be a sufficient guarantee; but in the poorer baronies he very much doubted whether it would be sufficient. If the Amendment were adopted he was very much afraid it would have the effect of throwing the whole expenditure upon the richer counties, and of excluding the poorer districts.

MR. DALY

said, that, if tramways could not be constructed in the poorer districts, because it was impossible to give a guarantee of 4 per cent. then, à forliori, they ought not to be asked to construct them at all.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that it was the practice for local authorities in England to borrow money on the credit of the rates; and rich Corporations, like those of London and Liverpool, could borrow money readily at 3½ per cent; whereas many small Corporations could not borrow at all, or, at all events, not at a less rate than 5 per cent. He did not see how it was to be supposed that baronies in Ireland in the poor districts would be able to borrow money at a lower rate than important boroughs in England, who found 5 per cent the lowest rate at which they could borrow.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he thought the Amendment was based upon a perfectly sound principle. These tramways were practically guaranteed railways, and the point in dispute had reference only to one-half of the guarantee. The lenders of money would not dispute the 2 per cent guaranteed by the State. It was only the other 2 per cent that there would be any question about, and if the Government thought 2 per cent too little, then he would suggest that it should be 4½ per cent. At any rate, the Government ought to fix the maximum rate of interest to be granted, and not leave the grand juries in Ireland unlimited power in the matter.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he could confirm the statement which had been made by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. He had a paper in his hand which gave a list of the loans borrowed under a guaranteed rate of interest, and he found that the average rate at which Irish Corporations could borrow money was 5 per cent. Therefore, in the interest of the practical working of the Bill, he was afraid it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he thought 4 per cent would be quite sufficient to fetch the money. He was afraid this would be an Act to facilitate the getting of a high rate of interest from people who were least able to pay. If the grand jury had the power to make the interest 5 per cent. the contractors would act accordingly, and demand that rate without lowering the contract price. Four per cent was sufficient to get the money in every enterprize that was at all feasible.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the words 'not exceeding five per cent' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. BIGGAR

proposed, in line 12, after "Act," to insert "and bonâ fide expended on permanent way and rolling stock." His object in this Amendment was to impose some check upon the contractors. The nominal capital might be £1,000, for instance, and yet the total value of the property, if the Act were passed in its present shape, need not be more than half that amount. His desire was that the grand jury or the Board of Works should see whether the money for which they made themselves liable was properly laid out. The words "paid up capital" were too vague.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after "Act," insert "and bonâ fide expended on permanent way and rolling stock."—(Mr. Biggar.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, it must be obvious to the Committee that this Amendment could not be accepted because, under it, it would be impossible for a Company to have one farthing of capital except such as was actually expended in the rolling stock and the permanent way. He reminded the hon. Gentleman that the subject-matter of the Amendment would arise on Subsection 4. The matter could then be discussed, and, therefore, he asked the hon. Member to withdraw his present Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

proposed to leave out from "Act," in line 12, to "baronies," in line 16. If the contractor did his work badly and the tramway could not be used, the consequences would fall upon the unfortunate barony or baronies. The contractor might do his work in a ship-shod manner, and yet the barony and not himself would be the sufferer. There was a Railway Company in Ireland which had become bankrupt. They borrowed money from the Board of Works, and the line was now in the hands of the Board of Works, but they were not obliged to work it. An attempt was now being made to make an unfortunate barony do what the Board of Works did not do. "What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander." Either they should not compel a barony to work a dilapidated tramway, or they should compel the Board of Works to work the Portumna Railway.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, leave out from "Act," to "baronies," in line 16.—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, they had provided against a swindling contractor laying down a line that would not work, by securing a local supervision. Baronies and the grand juries would have to see that the line was properly made, and that they got value for their money. If a line that was properly laid did not pay, all they had done was to take power for the grand jury to make arrangements for the working of the line.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BIGGAR

proposed, in line 18, after "presentment," to insert— Setting forth the amount of present traffic over proposed line, nature of the district, and any further information they can, calculated to inform the Lord Lieutenant that the undertaking is a sound one. The intention of the Amendment was that the Lord Lieutenant should not give his sanction to a scheme that it was perfectly evident could not pay. He (Mr. Biggar) was anxious that these tramways, when made, should succeed, and he thought the proposition he now made was perfectly reasonable.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 18, after "presentment," insert "setting forth the amount of present traffic over proposed line, nature of the district, and any further information they can, calculated to inform the Lord Lieutenant that the undertaking is a sound one."—(Mr. Biggar.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) might be assured that the Lord Lieutenant and the Board of Works would take good care to acquaint themselves with the character of the traffic and the prospects of the district. These words would be mere surplusage, and, therefore, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BIGGAR

proposed, in line 19, to leave out "baronies," and insert— District, so that no ratepayer shall he chargeable whose holding is more than three miles distant from any part of the Tramway. There were some parts of baronies in which, for a variety of reasons, tramways could not be laid down. A large river or mountain might prevent the existence of a tramway in a particular part, and it was quite easy to understand, therefore, that there were some persons who would not reap the slightest advantage from a tramway. His wish was that only those people who received any benefit from the tramway should be called upon to pay for its construction. In the county of Waterford the grand jury paid as much as £14,000 a-year to a line which barely paid the working expenses, and he knew there were many farmers in the county who did not get the slightest advantage from the railway. The nearest station was more than five miles from the town of Waterford. The farmers used their carts, and the result was the railway was of no service to them, although they paid very dearly for it. It was but reasonable that the persons living a given distance from the tramway should not pay anything towards its construction and maintainance.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 19, leave out "baronies," and insert "district, so that no ratepayer shall he chargeable whose holding is more than three miles distant from any part of the tramway."—(Mr. Biggar.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'baronies' stand part of the Clause."

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, it was desirable there should be some modification of the words of the clause. As the clause now stood, it would be only competent for the grand jury to place taxation in respect of the tramway upon the whole barony. On account of the lay of the country, and the shape of a district, it would be, in many cases, impossible for some persons—those, for instance, who lived at the far end of a barony—to receive any benefit at all from a tramway; therefore, it should be competent for the grand jury to exercise their discretion as to what part of the barony they should place the assessment upon. He would, however, suggest the insertion of the words "such baronies or parts of baronies," in lieu of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar).

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the hon. Member for Cavan had pointed out a possible grievance. There might be persons who could not possibly be benefited by a tramway. He (Mr. Chamberlain), however, preferred the words suggested by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) to those proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar).

MR. BIGGAR

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after "baronies," to insert "or parts of baronies."—(Mr. Tottenham.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. LALOR

proposed to insert, after "rate," in line 21, "not exceeding five per cent per annum."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, after "rate," insert "not exceeding five per cent per annum."—(Mr. Lalor.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, to omit "as the grand jury may determine."—(Mr. Lalor.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. HEALY

said, he was afraid that if this Amendment were adopted the grand jury would have no option but to pay 5 per cent.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. TOTTENHAM

proposed to insert, as a consequence of the Amendment accepted a moment ago, after "baronies," in line 24, "or parts of baronies."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 24, to insert, after "baronies," "or parts of baronies."—(Mr. Tottenham.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. BIGGAR

, in order to obtain an expression of opinion from the Government, moved, formally, in page 1, line 23, to leave out from "and" to "completing," in line 26. He feared that the grand jury would not only be liable for the guarantee of 5 per cent. but for a much larger sum. In his opinion, 5 per cent should be the highest possible limit that the grand jury should have to pay.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, to leave out from "and" to "completing," in line 26.—(Mr. Biggar.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the words proposed to be left out were consequential upon the retention of the words at the end of the 1st sub-section of the clause. The hon. Gentleman must remember that it was only a permissive power that the grand jury had.

MR. HEALY

said, there was a slight danger, now that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) had been adopted, that the grand jury would proceed in the same way that the Lord Lieutenant had proceeded under the Crimes Act. Something ought to be done to prevent any invidious exemptions being made.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, he did not think that any one individual could carry 22 other people with him in favour of the exemption of his property from the assessment.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he was not satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain). He knew it was only optional; but the grand jury could give this 5 per cent. and then as much more as they chose to spend.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that all the grand jury was limited to was the amount of the dividend. As he pointed out before, if a tramway did not pay working expenses, the grand jury, having guaranteed the 5 per cent. must have the option to spend whatever additional sum might be required in order to get a workable property.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he had now to propose an Amendment as a consequence of certain suggestions put into his hands by the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea). The hon. Gentleman had pointed out to him that Sub-section 3 was too unelastic and narrow, and provided only one method of local control, which in the case especially of a Company which was engaged in working one or more tramways would so overweight the Board of Directors as to very seriously impede the working of the concern. The new sub-section he (Mr. Trevelyan) now proposed provided for such larger or smaller amount of local control over the line as might be necessary in each particular case, in view of the enactment that the baronies should in all cases be represented by a representative sitting on the Board of Directors. The Government did not absolutely hold to the Amendment, but they thought that probably it would, on the whole, meet the views of hon. Members. He certainly thought the former enactment was far too narrow, and might have very seriously, under certain circumstances, interfered with the proper working of the tramways. He begged to move, in page 2, to leave out sub-section (3), and insert,— (3.) The presentment shall provide that the barony or baronies which it is proposed to charge with any part of such guarantee shall be represented in the direction and supervision of the affairs or finance of the Company, so far as relates to the said Tramway, or the part or parts thereof, in respect of which such barony or baronies are proposed to be charged. This may be done—(a) By enabling the presentment sessions for such barony from time to time to elect a director or a local consulting director or directors of the Company as the grand jury think necessary; (b) By enabling such presentment sessions from time to time to appoint an auditor, with power to inspect the books and accounts of the said Company at stated and reasonable times; (c) By enabling such presentment sessions from time to time to appoint a delegate or delegates to attend and vote at the general meetings of the Company under such conditions as may be prescribed; (d) By any combination of the foregoing arrangements deemed proper.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. O'SHEA

said, his idea was that the success of the Bill depended very much upon some public-spirited gentlemen forming themselves into Companies totally apart from the promotion money. He approved of the sub-section proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, though he should have to propose some verbal Amendments to which he understood the Government did not object.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, line 1, after the word "baronies," to insert the words "or parts of baronies."

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, sub-section (a), line 2, after the word "director," insert "or directors."—(Mr. Marum.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, he agreed that there might be so many ratepayers represented that the Directors of the Company would be altogether swamped. He thought that there should be some limit, and would suggest that the number of Directors elected by the Presentment Sessions should in no case exceed three, which would prevent the Company's Directors being over-weighted.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the Government were willing to accept this Amendment. He should not think it likely that the baronies would overburden the Board by sending an unnecessary number of Directors. Again, the shareholders were to be guaranteed their interest by the ratepayers, and could have no reason for objecting to the baronies being represented in the manner proposed.

MR. TOTTENHAM

contended that some limitation was necessary. The Directors representing the baronies would probably have little acquaintance with the proper management of the affairs of a Tramway Company, and it might very easily happen that the number of inexperienced persons on the Board of Direction would be greater than those who were competent to manage the Company's affairs. He believed that people about to find the money in the first instance for capital would wish to see how the Board of Direction was to be constituted, and when they found that their Directors were going to be in a minority they would think twice before they paid their money into the concern. In this way the operation of the Bill would be impeded, and therefore he suggested the limitation of the number of representatives from the baronies.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, they wanted the work in connection with Irish Tramways to go forward, and they believed it would prove successful. He knew from experience that it was undesirable there should be a large number of Directors on the Boards of these Companies, and he regarded three representatives from each barony as too many—one consulting Director would, in his opinion, be sufficient.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the argument of the hon. Gentleman was based on the assumption that the number was compulsory; but that was not the case. It could not be supposed that the baronies would want to overweight the Board; they could only wish to see so many Directors upon it as would be necessary to work the Company properly.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, he remained of the same opinion as that which he had already expressed—namely, that those persons who found the money would like to understannd by whom it would be managed after it had been subscribed. He was confident that if the clause remained in its present form—if the number of baronial representatives was unlimited—it would militate against the operation of the measure.

MR. DALY

agreed that it was undesirable to have a preponderance of persons on the Direction of the Companies who were practically unacquainted with the working of tramways.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, as the Bill was a good one, he thought it better to allow it to pass as it stood, than to prevent its becoming law by attempting to amend it at that period of the Session.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. O'SHEA

said, he proposed to move to leave out the word "Company" from Sub-section (b) in order to insert the word "Tramway." The object of this Amendment was that the auditors should only have access to the accounts in which the baronies were interested. he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the alteration.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he was prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clare, but preferred to retain the word "Company." The Government would agree to the insertion of the words "relating to the said tramway at stated and reasonable times."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, alter the word "Company," in Sub-section (b), to add the words "relating to the said tramway at stated and reasonable times."—(Mr. 0'Shea.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, that unless some restricting words were added to Sub-section (c) the delegates appointed by the Presentment Sessions would be constantly bringing forward questions with which they had no concern whatever. If the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to add a few words after the word "vote," the action of the delegates could be easily confined to the particular business they were concerned in.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, sub-section (c), after the word "Company," insert "on business relating to the said tramway."—(Mr. Tottenham.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. MARUM

said, it was his contention that the salaries of the Directors and officers of the Company ought to be under control, and therefore he proposed that power should be taken to lay down a scale of payment subject to revision when necessary.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, after the word "prescribed," insert sub-section (c.)— The presentment may lay down a scale of payment for the directors and. officials of the Company, and may provide for the revision of such scale."—(Mr. Marum.)

Question proposed, "That those words be their inserted."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the original objection entertained by the Government to the Amendment of the hon. Member was that it assumed that in all cases the Directors would be paid, whereas they had supposed that the work would be done for nothing. If, however, the hon. Gentleman was willing to accept the view that there should be payment, he would then gladly adopt the suggested Amendment.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that as the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman constituted a new declaration, distinct from the object of the sub-section which he proposed to amend, it would be better if the Amendment were withdrawn, so that it might be added in the shape of a new sub-section after Sub-section (d). The Government had no objection to the wording of the Amendment, which was quite correct.

MR. MARUM

said, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendnent, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made, in page 2, at the end, by adding the following subsection:— (b) Nothing contained in this Act shall operate to prevent a Company from promoting, constructing, and working two or more different Tramway undertakings: Provided always that such Company shall keep separate capital and revenue accounts for each Tramway.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he thought the grand jury should not alone have the power to decide as to whether a tramway should be made or not. The Amendment which he was about to move to Clause 2, and for which the Amendment to Clause 1 was intended to prepare the way, provided that an appeal should lie from the grand jury to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, at end of Clause, add—"If the Grand Jury shall decide against the proposed Tramway, they shall make a report to the Lord Lieutenant in Council stating their reasons for refusing the proposal."—(Colonel Nolan.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, it was quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment, because its effect would be to authorize taxation of the ratepayers without the sanction of the properly constituted body in whom the power to tax them was vested.

MR. HARRINGTON

suggested that the words "with the sanction of" might be inserted.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he must complain that there was no time to discuss the Bill, and he had no alternative but to withdraw the Amendment. The argument of the Chief Secretary, however, had no weight with him.

MR. BARRY

said, he thought the Committee were anxious that the Bill should pass that day. At the same time, he would urge on the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of giving some indication that he would consider this question further on a future stage of the Bill. Seeing how the Amendment was safeguarded by other Amendments, he thought the Government might accept it. It was quite possible that, without some such Amendment, the feeling of the people might be in favour of the construction of a tramway, and yet that the grand juries would object.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, this was the one point of the Bill upon which he considered that he should be justified in occupying the attention of the Committee. One district which had been brought forward and urged upon Her Majesty's Government as illustrating the necessity of some such measure as this was the district of Loughrea. Now, what was the history of the district of Loughrea in regard to the communication which a measure of this kind would facilitate? There was a small piece of railway required in order to connect that town and the district with the general railway system of the country, and the length was, he believed, only a few miles. The Bishop of the diocese in which Loughrea was the central point had urged in every way he possibly could upon the Government the necessity of supplying this connecting link, and he believed that both the late Chief Secretary and the present Lord Lieutenant were anxious to facilitate the efforts of the Bishop to secure the benefits which the completion of the communication would supply. What, then, bad been the sole obstacle to the construction of the line? Simply a resident landlord and the grand jury of the district; and what had taken place there had also taken place in other parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman ought to give the ratepayers an opportunity of appealing against decisions which might so seriously affect them.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he thought that both the landlords and the ratepayers had the same object in view. If the majority of the ratepayers were anxious to have tramways, and to bear their portion of the expense, they might depend upon it that they would have them; and, on the other hand, if they were not considered of advantage, no provision would be made for them. He admitted that the representive authority in the Bill for the representation of the locality was not entirely satisfactory. But let the Committee consider what the alternative was which it was proposed to substitute. The alternative was 100 cesspayers rated to the extent of £5 per annum, or any Town Commissioners or Corporation upon the line of the proposed railway, so that those who might only have a small interest in the line would, if that proposal were adopted, on obtaining the consent of the Lord Lieutenant, have a taxing power over the whole of the barony. That, he thought, was a monstrous proposition. The Government desired to secure for Ireland a more satisfactory system of local government, and he hoped that Parliament would not separate without taking some step in that direction. At the same time, they could only, at the present moment, deal with what they had actually before them.

MR. MACFARLANE

asked the Government whether, if they could not accept the series of Amendments proposed by his hon. and learned Friend (Colonel Nolan), they would not accept the first of them which called on the grand jury to make a report to the Lord Lieutenant in Council stating their reasons for refusing the proposal? Of course, if their reasons were satisfactory, no effect ought to be given to them. He trusted that any idea of referring the question to the Report stage of the Bill would not he entertained.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. POSTER)

said, he was anxious to get on with the Bill, seeing the limited time at their disposal.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he quite agreed with the Attorney General; and, although he believed that nearly the whole of the Irish Members would vote with him (Colonel Nolan), he thought the best course would be to withdraw the Amendment. He was not at all prepared to admit the argument of the President of the Board of Trade, because the cesspayers would not be able to tax the ratepayers at all, but they would only have a right to be heard, and it would be the Lord Lieutenant who would tax them.

DR. LYONS

said, that unless something was done to make provision for the special meeting of the grand juries, it might be desirable to have some arrangement by which they could meet within a reasonable time after the passing of the Act. Otherwise there would be a long delay, and it might not be possible to arrange at the Winter Assessment Assizes for all the presentments, the consequence of which would be to throw them all over until March. Without pretending to foresee all the difficulties in the way, he thought the principle was right that some arrangement should be made, even if it involved a slight additional expense in sending one or two of the Judges to meet the grand juries, and hold a proper Presentment Sessions. If that were done, some of the tramway lines now projected might be carried out in the course of two or three months; and, during the winter, arrangements might be entered into for commencing the works. It was quite possible, by a plan of that kind, for some tramways to be brought into operation early, which he thought would give great satisfaction to the community. He would, therefore, ask the Attorney General if he saw any difficulty in the way of accepting that arrangement; and, if not, whether he would take the matter into his consideration? In his (Dr. Lyon's) opinion, it would save much unnecessary expense if the matter was disposed of at an earlier Assize.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

wished he could see his way to an arrangement of that kind; but he was afraid that it was not possible to summon the grand juries in order to hold Special Presentment Sessions for carrying out the provisions of the Act. What might happen was this, that the grand jury would be summoned in one county and not in another. It was obvious that there would be a great rush of persons who were anxious to obtain the benefit of the Act; but there might be one Sheriff who would say that he would not summon the grand jury, while another would be anxious to do so, and thus they might open the door to something almost in the nature of jobbery. He thought it would be better that the autumn and winter months should be employed by the promoters in getting up their schemes and arranging their plans. They would then obtain a fair start, and be better able to come before the Assizes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 (Petition of appeal against presentment).

MR. O'SHEA

said, the number of cesspayers under the Bill who, by appealing to the Lord Lieutenant in Council against the presentment of a grand jury, could prevent a tramway from being made was six. The consequence was, that a certain number of persons paying £60 a-year in the shape of county cess might be able to prevent a tramway from being constructed; and, of course, in the case of a short line, the promoters could not possibly afford to come to Parliament for their Bill. Under those circumstances, he would move to substitute 20 cesspayers for six.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, leave out "six," and insert "twenty."—(Mr. O'Shea.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he was willing to admit that the Bill was drawn up rather wide, and he would, therefore, accept the Amendment.

MR. TOTTENHAM

suggested that, instead of 20, the number should be 100.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he must decline to accept 100.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, that as 100 was objected to, would the right hon. Gentleman accept 50 instead of 20?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he thought that 20 was a fair number.

Question, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'twenty' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. O'SHEA

said, the next two Amendments he had to propose hung together, and the effect of them was to provide that the 20 cesspayers collectively should pay one-fourth, or upwards, of the county cess.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, after "one," insert "collectively."—(Mr. O'Shea.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'collectively' be there inserted."

MR. PARNELL

said, he thought the second Amendment which his hon. Friend Mr. O'Shea had placed upon the Paper was scarcely fair and reasonable. So far as he (Mr. Parnell) could see, it provided that 20 cesspayers should pay one-fourth of the cess. There might be 20 cesspayers very much against the tramway, and yet not sufficiently rich, or possessed of sufficient property in the county to enable them to have their views properly represented.

MR. O'SHEA

said, that if his hon. Friend considered one-fourth too much, he would suggest one-eighth.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, he thought one-fourth ought to be retained in the Amendment as it was. Surely, one-fourth was a sufficiently small minority to enjoy the power proposed to be conferred upon them.

MR. O'SHEA

said, that what he was anxious to prevent was the possibility of anything in the shape of jobbery. For instance, a tramway five or six miles long might be proposed, and the promoters might feel disposed to go to the cesspayers and offer inducements to them to support the proposal.

THE CHAIRMAN

I wish to point out to the Committee that the Amendment now before the Committee is the first Amendment, which relates simply to the insertion of the word "collectively."

Question, "That the word 'collectively' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, after "pay," insert "one-eighth or upwards of the."—(Mr. O'Shea.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he thought the Amendment a very fair one.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. O'SHEA

moved to strike out the last paragraph of the clause—namely, Such petition of appeal shall operate in the same manner as a petition of appeal under the Tramways (Ireland) Acts to prevent the Order in Council from taking effect unless confirmed by Parliament.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 25, leave out all after "presentment" to end of Clause.—(Mr. O'Shea.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

accepted the Amemdment.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. MARUM moved, at the end of the clause, to insert— The Lord Lieutenant in Council may, upon the application of such promoters, award costs to an amount not exceeding the sum of ten pounds against any such person or persons groundlessly or frivolously and vexatiously presenting a petition of appeal. He thought there ought to be some provision, not only in regard to the number of cesspayers presenting a petition of appeal; but also that there should be a penalty for the frivolous and vexatious presentation of a petition. He had, therefore, put down this Amendment in order to prevent such frivolous petitions. It was quite obvious that when a tramway was promoted, it might be easy to get up a number of cesspayers to act together in opposition, and in that way to defeat the measure; and to counteract any action of that kind, where it was palpably groundlessly taken, this proposition, he believed, would have the effect of preventing groundless, frivolous, and vexatious petitions of appeal, on account of the expense which might in such cases be thrown upon the petitioners. Perhaps persons who would commit an act of the kind would not think very much of paying £10 in costs; but he would make the proposition, and leave it in the hands of the Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 28, at end of Clause, insert—"The Lord Lieutenant in Council may, upon the application of such promoters, award costs to an amount not exceeding the sum of ten pounds against any such person or persons groundlessly or frivolously or vexatiously presenting a petition of appeal."—(Mr. Marum.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he thought that, after the Amendment already accepted by the Government, the proposal of the hon. Member was quite unnecessary. There must now be 20 people joining together who must pay collectively one-eighth of the entire county cess. He, therefore, could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 (Order in Council may adopt the presentment of the grand jury).

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he had placed an Amendment upon the Paper empowering the Lord Lieutenant in Council to inquire into the necessity for any proposed tramway, and to make an Order rendering the barony responsible for such sums as he might decide, which Order should have the same effect for all purposes as if it had been a presentment of the grand jury. He would not, however, move that Amendment at present.

Clause agreed to; and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 (Baronies to contribute pursuant to their guarantee).

MR. O'SHEA moved an Amendment to provide that during the continuance of the guarantee the net receipts from the tramway should be applied to the payment of a dividend, after deducting from the gross receipts the expenses of the tramway, as well as the management and working of the tramway.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 40, after "working," insert "and proper maintainance."—(Mr. O'Shea.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 24, leave out "Company," and insert" Tramway."—(Mr. O' Shea.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'Company' stand part of the Clause."

MR. TOTTENHAM

suggested that the word "Tramway" should be inserted before "Company."

MR. O'SHEA

said, that would not carry out the object he had in view, because there might be several Tramway Companies working several tramways.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, that if they struck out the word "Company," and inserted "Tramway," the clause would have no sense, because a tramway had no capital. It was the Company which had the capital.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, it would, perhaps, be better to substitute the words "so much of the share capital applicable to such Tramway."

MR. O'SHEA

said, he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of that suggested by the President of the Board of Trade.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, after "Company," insert "applicable to such Tramway."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. O'SHEA moved a Proviso to enact that the sums required to pay a dividend or to make up a deficiency should be charged upon the barony chargeable under the guarantee— Unless an appeal to the Board of Trade founded upon an affidavit sworn by the auditor or other person appointed by the grand jury, under Clause one, and specifying unjust or improper charges in the accounts relating to the Tramway. The object of this Amendment was to provide that it should not be necessary to bring in certain machinery provided for afterwards by the Bill, unless there was real cause for it. Under ordinary circumstances everything would go on in an easy way, and there would be no necessity for constant litigation.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 3, after "shall," insert "unless an appeal to the Board of Trade founded upon an affidavit sworn by the auditor or other person appointed by the grand jury, under Clause one, and specifying unjust or improper charges in the accounts relating to the Tramway."—(Mr. O'Shea.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he would make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman. He was not anxious to have any more administration thrown upon himself in connection with the affairs of Ireland. As the Bill was drawn, all the Board of Trade had to do was to appoint an arbitrator in a case in which an arbitration was to be held; but his hon. Friend proposed to make the Board of Trade actually responsible for the works. If this were done at all, it ought to be done by the Irish Department.

MR. O'SHEA

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman objected, he would not press the Amendment.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, it appeared to him that the Board of Trade would not be the proper authority.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

remarked, that under the Bill the machinery was the same as that already employed where guarantees were given.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 (Repayment by Company of money contributed by the baronies) agreed to.

Clause 6 (Amount to be paid by baronies).

On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made, in page 3, line 34, by leaving out from "time" to "appointed."

MR. PLUNKET

said, that in the absence of his right hon. and learned Col league (Mr. Gibson), he would move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, at the end, add—"It shall not be lawful for any county surveyor, liable to be appointed an arbitrator under this provision, to promote or have any pecuniary interest in or connected with any proposed Tramway."—(Mr. Plunket.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the words "proposed Tramway," to insert the words "in the county of which he is a surveyor."—(Colonel Nolan.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he must confess that he did not like the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend; but he preferred the Amendment as it originally stood on the Paper. No doubt, it would be a dangerous thing in dealing with a public officer to allow him to have an interest in any matter in which he might be called upon to give a decision. It might lead to what was called in another country a certain amount of "logrolling," and he thought that, like Cæsar's wife, all public officers should be above suspicion.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 (Sums mentioned in certificates to be presented by grand jury and paid by county treasurer).

MR. PARNELL

said, he rose to move, in line 31, to leave out the words— In like manner as any presentment made under the authority of an Act passed in the Session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of His late Majesty King William the Fourth, chapter one hundred and sixteen, and any Act amending the same; and if the grand jury fail to present the sum, or any part thereof, contained in any such certificate, together with the costs and expenses of levying the same, and to insert "equal parts off the owner and the occupier." The object of the Amendment, which had been alluded to several times in the discussion of the Bill, was to divide the guarantee into different parts between the owner and the occupier in the same manner as was done in the Relief of Distress Act, which permitted tramways to be made under somewhat similar provisions to those contained in the present Bill, except that the Government did not advance part of the guarantee. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. It might prevent some tramways from being made in some localities owing to the unwillingness of the landlords to take their share of the guarantee; but he did not think that, when a tramway was likely to be of any advantage to the community, this provision would be likely to prove a hindrance.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 31, leave out from "in" to "some" in line 35, inclusive, and insert "equal parts off the owner and the occupier."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, he presumed the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and those who acted with him desired the Bill to be effectual when it was passed; but the effect of adopting this Amendment would certainly be to prevent a great number of claims from being brought forward. Whatever might be said in favour of the proposal some years ago, the Land Act had entirely altered the conditions under which it could now be made. The owners had now no opportunity of increasing their rents or enhancing the value of their property, and, therefore, the conditions which formerly applied did not apply now.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the hon. Member for the City of Cork and himself had argued this question upon the second reading of the Bill, and the argument which had just been used by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) was also brought forward. He (Mr. Trevelyan) was certainly of opinion that if the Amendment was pressed, they would make so little progress with the Bill as to endanger the passing of it altogether.

COLONEL NOLAN

supported the Amendment. He doubted very much whether the landlords would be opposed to the construction of the tramways. On the contrary, he believed that a good many persons on the grand juries would be equally interested in their construction with the occupiers.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 (Application of Act to cities and corporate towns).

MR. BIGGAR

said, he moved to leave out the last paragraph in the clause, which provided that— Nothing contained in this Act relative to the mode of enforcing payment of any sums due on account of a baronial guarantee, or as to the levying of moneys for making such payment, shall prejudice or affect any action or proceedings which may he taken by any person or persons to whom any money is due on account of such guarantee. His object in moving the Amendment was to avoid litigation.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, leave out lines 30 to 35.—(Mr. Biggar.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SMALL moved, at the end of the clause, to add the following Subsection:— Nothing contained in the forty-second section of 'The Tramways (Ireland) Act, I860,' shall apply to any Tramway undertaking under the provisions of this Act. The Government had already accepted the principle, and the only question was the way in which it was to be carried into effect. He thought the way he now proposed was the most convenient and proper one.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, at the end of Clause, to add the words—"Nothing contained in the forty-second section of 'The Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860,' shall apply to any Tramway undertaking under the provisions of this Act."—(Mr. Small.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, he regarded the proposal contained in the Bill as much more convenient than that suggested by the hon. Member, and he, therefore, hoped that the hon. Member would not insist upon the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.