§ MR. GIBSONasked the Postmaster General,. Whether it was contemplated by the Postal Department that steamers equal to those at present on the Irish Mail Service should be employed under proposed contract by the London and North Western Railway Company; what was the gain of time contemplated, and was it on the land or sea voyage; what was the net difference between the estimates of the Irish and English Companies for the carriage of the Irish Mails between Holyhead and Kingstown; was any opportunity afforded to the London and North Western Railway Company to change or modify their proposal before it was accepted; and, was any similar opportunity afforded to the Irish Company before its estimate was rejected?
§ MR. FAWCETTSir, in answer to the first part of the Question of the right hon. and learned Member, with regard to the character of the steamers, I think it will be the best plan to quote the exact words of the draft contract, which stipulates for a sufficient number of good, substantial, and efficient steam vessels of adequate power and speed, and supplied with appropriate, first-rate steam engines, and in all respects fitted to the performance of the service. These are the conditions which were referred to in the printed advertisement which invited tenders, and they would have been applicable whichever of the two tenders had been accepted. The vessels which the contractors propose to employ will be carefully inspected, with the view of insuring that they comply in 786 every respect with the conditions first mentioned. The acceleration offered in the accepted tender of the London and North-Western Railway Company was half-an-hour each way both on the day and night mails, to be effected on the land and sea services combined. No acceleration was offered in the tender of the City of Dublin Company. An acceleration of even half-an-hour is very important, in view of the urgent representations which have been made from all parts of Ireland in favour of an earlier arrival and later departure of the London mail. The Dublin Company offered to carry the mails between Holyhead and Kingstown for £60,000 a-year; the London and North-Western Railway Company sent in two tenders—the one for the combined land and sea service, for £76,000; and the other for the sea service alone, for £66,000. Assuming that the present payment for the land service—namely, £20,000 a-year—was not increased, the net gain by adopting the proposed arrangement will be £4,000 a-year. Before the Government decided which tender to accept, the London and North-Western Railway Company were asked whether they were prepared to tender for the land service alone, with or without the proposed acceleration of half-an-hour. Their reply was that they would afford an accelerated land service for an extra payment of £13,000, or would continue to perform the present service for an increased payment of £7,500. If this offer for the accelerated land service had been accepted, the service would have cost £17,000 a-year more than under the arrangement now contemplated.
§ MR. GIBSONMay I ask if any facilities such as those afforded to the London and North-Western Railway were given to the Dublin Company to modify its proposals?
§ MR. FAWCETTThe question addressed to the London and North-Western Railway arose out of the fact of their having sent in two tenders. They were not asked to tender again for the sea service; the simple question was, what they would charge for the land service?
§ MR. GIBSONasked if any opportunity was given to the Dublin Steam Packet Company of saying what they would do, or would not do, before their estimate was summarily rejected?
§ MR. FAWCETTNot that I am aware of. Several communications, however, passed between the Company and the Post Office; in fact, one of the Directors of the Company is an intimate private friend of my own, and had an interview with me at the Post Office. Of course, it was perfectly open to them to have offered a lower tender. In the communications they were led to understand that, although money would not be the sole consideration, still that it would have an important bearing on the disposal of the contract; but, so far as I am aware, no letter passed.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked what guarantee the Government had from the London and North-Western Company, in the shape of penalty or otherwise, that the service would be performed in a shorter time?
§ MR. FAWCETTAll that will be stated in the draft contract. I forget for the moment what the penalties are; but I have no doubt that, as in all cases, the penalties will be enforced.
§ MR. DAWSONasked if it was not after the London and North-Western Company had been put in possession of the terms of the proposal of the Dublin Company that they made their second proposal, and whether that was not unfair information to give to any Company in competition with another?
§ MR. FAWCETTSo far as I am aware—I was away part of the time—every possible care was taken to prevent either party from knowing what the terms of the other Company were; and I believe so much was this the case, that, up to the last moment, it was supposed that the contract would be given to the Dublin Company.
MR. MACARTNEYasked if the acceleration proposed to be made by the London and North-Western Company would be partly by land and partly by sea, or whether it would be open to them to make it entirely by land, and not at all by sea?
§ MR. FAWCETTI stated that their tender was that they would guarantee an acceleration on the land and sea service combined. They do not pledge themselves as to what part the acceleration will be over.
§ MR. LEWISasked if the House and the country might take it that this question of the mail packet service was definitely concluded in the mind of the 788 right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General?
§ MR. FAWCETTThe decision does not rest with me. I did not conclude it at all. I am quite ready to accept responsibility for it as a Member of the Government; but all I did—and I think the Papers will show it—was to state the case as to the advantages and disadvantages to the Treasury frankly, and the decision must rest with the Treasury.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMasked whether the arrangement had been concluded entirely from a Post Office and mail point of view, or whether the requirements of the travelling public had in any way been considered?
§ MR. FAWCETTI cannot state what are the considerations that influenced the Government. It was our duty at the Post Office—and that duty we endeavoured to do—to point out what we thought would be the advantages and disadvantages from a postal point of view.
§ MR. LEWISI beg to give Notice, as the right hon. Gentleman evidently does not approve of the contract—
§ MR. FAWCETTNo, no! I must correct that statement. There is nothing I should more regret than that it should be supposed for one moment that I wished to avoid one atom of responsibility. What I stated was that it was not my business to decide the matter; that rests with the Treasury.
§ MR. LEWISI beg to give Notice that I shall ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, immediately after the Easter Holidays, Whether, having regard to the strongly expressed opinion of all portions of the Irish public, and Members of this House, the Government really intend to carry out a measure so obnoxious to almost all sections of the Irish people?
§ MR. GIBSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Treasury Minute of October 19th, 1855, recognises that the question of the communication between England and Ireland is not a mere Departmental one, to be settled on purely economical grounds, but is a matter of national importance, vitally concerning the interests of the whole United Kingdom; whether that Minute will be included in the Papers to be presented to Parliament; why the option of having the Irish mails carried to 789 the North Wall was introduced into proposed contract; and, whether vessels of the size of the present mail packets could be run into the private harbour of the London and North Western Railway Company at Holyhead?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)Sir, in reply to the first part of the Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have to say that the Minute to which he refers does recognize the importance, on social and political grounds, of the communication between London and Dublin, viâ Holyhead, being as rapid as possible; and, perhaps, I may be allowed to read two short extracts from the Minute—
Her Majesty's Government by no means desire to leave out of view the enormous social and political advantages, which may be expected to be derived from such an improved communication between the two countries, as the progress of art and science entitle the public to look for. Nor can my Lords leave out of view the great advantage and convenience which such an improved service would confer upon Irish Members of Parliament, whose public duties necessarily lead to their frequent passage between the two countries, and who are entitled to expect every fair facility for that purpose.And, again—In taking a review of the whole question as it now stands, it appears to my Lords that, in order to justify such a public expenditure as would insure the quickest possible communication twice a day, it is imperative that some great advantage in postal arrangements over those at present in use shall be gained, and that security shall be taken in any contract to be made for such a revision from time to time of the service as shall keep it up to the highest point of perfection which any improvements hereafter to be made may render practicable; and that the public interests shall not be made merely subservient to the advantages of shareholders in the Companies referred to under the plea that they are promoting the convenience of passengers.In reply to the second part of the Question, I have to say that the Minute has been already laid before Parliament in extenso, but that I will consider whether it might not be reprinted with some other Papers of dates antecedent to the recent negotiations with the two Companies. The Postmaster General will answer the latter part of the Question.
§ MR. FAWCETTWith regard, Sir, to the part of the Question which my right hon. Friend wishes me to answer, I may state that, although the Government 790 hold a strong opinion as to the advantages of the Kingstown route, and have no intention of allowing the mails to be sent by North Wall, yet so many opinions were expressed by influential persons in Ireland in favour of the North Wall route that it was thought desirable to secure the possibility of using it if at some future time it should be found advantageous to do so. I believe that vessels of the draught of the present mail steamers cannot at all times of the tide run into the harbour referred to by the right hon. and learned Member.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMasked whether the same sentiments which actuated the Lords of the Treasury in the Minute which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted still actuated the present Lords of the Treasury; and also whether they considered that the comfort and convenience of passengers and the travelling public were as likely to be provided for in vessels of 1,000 or 1,100 tons as in vessels of 1,400 or 1,500 tons?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)Sir, that is a Question which should more properly be answered after the Treasury Minute is laid on the Table, and the whole circumstances can be explained to Parliament. That will be done as soon as the contracts reach the Treasury and they have time to prepare the Minute.
§ MR. DAWSONasked whether the Postmaster General was aware that a Memorial had been presented to the Prime Minister, signed by 75 Members, and another Memorial signed by many Members of the other House; and whether, with that general expression of Irish opinion, he would state who the party or parties were who asked for the North Wall route?
§ MR. FAWCETTSir, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I received a very influential Irish deputation in June last. I knew very little of the relative merits of the North Wall and Kingstown routes at that time; but if the right hon. Member will refer to my speech on that occasion he will see that I stated in reply that it was evident, after the expression of opinion from the deputation, that one of the chief points which I had to consider from a postal point of view was the relative advantages and disadvantages of the North Wall and Kingstown routes respectively.