LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL (No. 378.)

HC Deb 19 August 1889 vol 339 cc1672-740

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."

MR. COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

I beg to move as an Amendment "That Standing Order 50 be suspended—that the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House." I regret the necessity of having to make this Motion at all, because it will be necessary to trouble the House with some of the Amendments which ought to have been decided in the Committee. So far as I am personally concerned, I have no fault to find with the Chairman of the Committee, although I do object to the manner in which he treated the Amendments. I would ask the House to examine the difference between the Bill as it now comes before the House and as it was introduced. It has been reduced from a Bill divided into two parts and 46 clauses into a Bill containing only one part and nine clauses. Those features of the Bill upon which the Chief Secretary laid the most stress in moving the Second Reading have disappeared altogether. In fact, the changes made are almost as great as those effected in the Tithes Bill. The Bill is, in truth, a new and distinct one. It looks as though measures may be smuggled through the House without discussion at all. As the Bill was originally framed it introduced a principle for the establishment of which in Ireland I would gladly make large sacrifices—namely, the right of popular control over the expenditure of public money. That principle has vanished from the Bill. Then, the House were assured that most of the money would be advanced to Railway Companies already in existence. But now the promoter has come on the scene, and all the securities promised to the British taxpayer have disappeared. As the Bill stands now, it is proposed to hand over £600,000 of the taxpayers' money to be jobbed away all over Ireland. If there is to be the guarantee of a Local Body in Ireland there is scarcely a limit to the amount which I would be willing to grant for the good of Ireland in compensation for the wrongs she has suffered in the past. But when I remember that of the 28 millions advanced to Ireland scarcely one-fourth has been productive of any real good to that country, I cannot but fear that the result will be most demoralising if this Bill passes in its present form. I think, therefore, that at this late period of the Session the Government will do well to withdraw the Bill and wait till another year. I protest against the course which has been taken, and beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now considered," in order to add the words "re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House,"—(Mr. Handel Cossham,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'now considered' stand part of the Question."

MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

As a Member of the Grand Committee on Trade who considered this Bill, I rise to support the Amendment. My experience of that Committee has convinced me that the Bill ought not to have been referred to that Committee at all. I went into the Committee with no preconceived hostility to the measure; on the contrary, I viewed it with a certain amount of sympathy. But it did not take me long to discover that the Bill was distinctly political and of a highly contentious character. The House will be astounded at the amount of change which has been introduced into the Bill. As originally introduced the Bill consisted of two parts. Part I. gave direct aid to Railway Companies, and Part II. contained special protective clauses with respect to promoters. Part II. has altogether disappeared. If that alone had happened there would not have been much to complain of, but the promoter for whom Part II. was intended has not disappeared, but has simply been transferred from Part II. to Part I. And the kind of aid which was, in the first instance, intended only for the Railway Companies is now to be given to the promoter, without any of the securities and safeguards which were originally provided. Besides this, we complain that this change has been effected without any real discussion in the Grand Committee. Fully one-third of the Com- mittee felt obliged in the middle of the discussion of Clause 4 to withdraw in consequence of the rules laid down by the Chairman as to what Amendments were admissible and what not. Thus 16 pages of Amendments were passed over. That would be a sufficient reason for the formal re-committal of the Bill. The Chairman laid down Rules of Procedure which made discussion absolutely impossible. The Chairman refused to entertain any Amendment which, in his opinion, was hostile to the principle of the Bill. On one occasion he refused an Amendment because, in his opinion, it was not a fair and reasonable one. Then the Chairman would not allow discussion of any of the clauses as a whole. I am, however, bound to admit that on other occasions the Chairman allowed a certain latitude. On one occasion he put an Amendment to the Committee which, if carried, would have left the Bill in this position—"That Clause 3 shall apply to railways only, but the Committee decline to consider the Light Railways Bill further." At all events, the remarkable line of ruling adopted by the Chairman had the effect of which we complain; it drove one-third of the Committee from the room; it brought about the excision, without discussion, of four-fifths of the Bill as it was sent to the Committee, and it has caused to be presented to the House a Bill entirely different in character and scope from that which the Committee was appointed to consider. Besides that, I have to complain of the surreptitious way in which the Government brought about this change in the structure and character of the measure. This immense revolution was effected in the most quiet and unobtrusive way by an apparently harmless Amendment, moved without remark and accepted without observation by the Members of the Committee who represented the Government. The new Bill contains on the face of it a monument of what I may call the duplicity of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this Bill. The Amendment to which I refer was an Amendment to introduce in Clause 3 promoters whose case was provided for in Part II. Constantly we asked the Representatives of the Government, "Do you intend Part II. to be cut out of the Bill;" but we could get no information from the Solicitor General for Ireland on the point. We continued the discussion as if Part II. was to remain an essential part of the Bill. The monument as to the character of the Government's proceeding is to be found in Clause 2, Subsection 2, which now says that— The Lord Lieutenant, by Order in Council, may from time to time declare … that the Provisions of Part 1 and II. of this Act shall be applicable to such Light Railways … but the provisions of Part I. and II. of this Act shall not apply except to the Light Railways specified in such Order in Council aforesaid. The complaint I make is that we were allowed to discuss Clause 2 on the theory that Part II. was to remain an essential part of the Bill, and that now Part II. has disappeared altogether from the Bill. I make no imputation whatever upon the Chairman of the Grand Committee. I believe he intended to be fair, and to do what he thought was best in the interest of the House and of the Bill. We only complain of an enormous error of judgment on his part, which has resulted in the proceedings of the Committee having become entirely nugatory, and in a serious blow having been dealt at the Grand Committee system. We do not say there is an appeal from the Grand Committee to this House, and we do not ask the House to pass a resolution condemning the Committee as a whole, or the majority of the Committee, or the Chairman. But we say there has been committed a mistake which this House is bound in fairness and in justice to all parties to rectify. There is a great deal more than the fate of this Bill involved. It appears to me that to some extent the future of the Grand Committee system is involved. I have never been strongly in favour of the system, otherwise than as accompanied by the most stringent securities and guarantees. I believe those securities and guarantees have been evaded, and evaded by what has taken place in Committee on this Bill; and I believe that if the Chairmen of other Grand Committees followed the course adopted in this case the Grand Committee system would completely break down. It would be absolutely fatal to the system if, for instance, the theory became established that it is the duty of the Chairman of a Standing Committee to push through the Bill that is before the Committee. That unquestionably was the theory which was at work in respect to this Bill. The system in the United States makes the Chairman absolute master of the Bills in his Committee, but I do not think this House would stand any such assumption of authority on the part of the Chairman of a Grand Committee. I should like, in support of the position we have taken up, to allude to the opinions formerly expressed in the House on this subject by two Members, each of them of high personal besides official authority. The First Lord of the Treasury will remember that in 1883 he expressed a very guarded and reluctant assent to the establishment of the Grand Committee system, and I know, by reference to his speeches, that if there was one point more than another in which he asked and obtained a pledge from the Government of the Day, it was that only non-contentious business should be sent to Grand Committees. There never was a more contentious Bill submitted to the House than this. The other Gentleman to whom I refer is the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Whitbread), whose authority on matters of procedure is unequalled amongst the ordinary Members of the House. That hon. Member, who was a supporter of the Grand Committee system, laid down the principle that the system could never be expected or desired to succeed unless discussion in the Standing Committee was to be as absolutely free as it is in Committee of the Whole House. Can it be contended that the discussion on this Bill in Grand Committee was as free as it will be if the Motion of my hon. Friend is accepted? I have much pleasure in supporting the Motion for the re-committal of the Bill.

* MR. BIGGAR (Cavan)

I have not had much experience of the proceedings of Grand Committees, but from the little experience I have of them I am inclined to agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee. I have had much experience of the workings of Committees of the Whole House, and I must say I never saw the slightest attempt to conduct a Bill in Committee of the Whole House as this Bill was conducted in Grand Committee. I have no doubt the Chairman of the Committee acted within his lights, but, unfortunately, his lights were not very bright. A mad sheep is supposed to be as dangerous an animal as there is. I will make an appeal to the Government. I suppose they are desirous that this Bill shall be as efficient as possible. I suppose that, so far as the original Bill was concerned, they thought they had drawn a Bill which would not give rise to much complaint either on the one side or the other; but I must confess that the Bill which has come from the Grand Committee is of an entirely different nature. In introducing the Bill the Chief Secretary for Ireland said it was intended that no part of a barony should be taxed under the Bill unless it got substantial benefit from the outlay. But in the Bill as it now stands the baronies lose the advantage of that provision. The same remark applies to many other provisions. What has occurred is this: we have got now a Bill sent back to this House which not only takes away all these safeguards and restraints on the cupidity of promoters, but deals much more liberally with ordinary promoters than with railway companies, although railway companies in many instances in Ireland would be able to fulfil any contract they might enter into. The promoters have full authority to go ahead though they may not be substantial people. Notwithstanding that railway companies are able to pay dividends and can show a tolerably large surplus after paying working expenses you impose stringent regulations on them, whilst you give promoters who may be of a remarkably shady character an entirely free hand. Nothing could better serve the purpose of the opponents of the Bill than its passing in its present form, because the promoters will be sure to be disgraced. If the Bill were referred to a Committee of the Whole House, I cannot see that its passage into law would be longer deferred than if the Government insist on pressing it forward just as it is.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOAED OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)

The question, as I understand it, now before the House is not so much the merits and principles of this Bill, as whether the House shall take the course suggested by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Cossham). I think it will be at once admitted that the course suggested is a most unusual one. It is not going too far to say it is absolutely contrary to the intention of the House in appointing these Standing Committees. It is obvious that the intention of the House in appointing Standing Committees is that the Bills referred to them shall be dealt with as in Committee of the whole House, and that when the Bills have been reported to the House nothing more than the ordinary proceedings on Report stage should take place. I think even hon. Members opposite will admit that there must be exceptional circumstances to justify a Motion for the re-committal to a Committee of the Whole House of a Bill which has been dealt with by a Standing Committee. What are the special circumstances of this case? It has been argued that the Bill has been entirely changed and that it is practically now a new Bill; that in consequence of the alteration made on the Motion of the hon. Member for Dublin great opposition to the Bill originated in the Committee; and that, owing to certain rulings of the Chairman of the Committee, Amendments which arose from that opposition could not be moved and considered in the Standing Committee. What are the facts of the case? I will refer to the provisions of the Act of 1883, under which the Treasury was permitted to guarantee a dividend in connection with tramways or light railways. The Act of 1883 allowed the Treasury to guarantee a certain amount per annum, not exceeding half the amount guaranteed by the counties or baronies, and not exceeding 2 per cent, by way of repayment to the counties or baronies of part of the dividend guaranteed by them to the tramway company under the provisions of that Act.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

It was a provisional guarantee.

* SIR M. HICKS BEACH

No doubt it was. It was purely a provisional guarantee; and what has been the result? I will venture to say that if Parliament, when the Act of 1883 was passed, could have anticipated to what extent that provision would have failed, something more would have been done at that time. It has obviously failed, because only a small proportion of the annual sum which the Act of 1883 allowed the Treasury to guarantee has been guaranteed, though the object of the Act was, of course, that the full guarantee should be utilised in ex- tending to the more remote and to the poorer parts of Ireland the benefits of the communication which the Act was intended to establish. Therefore the Government had proposed, in the Bill now before the House, to alter the system under which these Treasury guarantees were given. Why did that system fail? Mainly because it was an indirect guarantee. It was not so good or so marketable a security as if the Treasury had been permitted to give the guarantee directly. What is the proposal now before the House? In the first part of the Bill the Treasury were empowered to grant assistance to an existing railway company towards the construction of light railways by way of a free grant, a loan, or an annual payment. That assistance was to be direct. What was the further proposal of the Bill? In Part II. it was proposed that promoters, in other words a public company promoting a light railway, should also have direct assistance.

MR. CHANCE

By way of annual guarantee.

* SIR M. HICKS BEACH

Yes, by way of an annual guarantee not exceeding 3 per cent, and the Standing Committee to which this Bill was referred have made this alteration in that proposal, that they have allowed the Treasury not merely to guarantee an annual sum not exceeding 3 per cent to a public company promoting such a railway under the provisions of the Act of 1883, but also to assist by way of free grants or by way of loans. What is this enormous change which has thus been made by the Standing Committee? Hon. Members should reflect that the Treasury can borrow money at less than 3 per cent, and that, therefore, in allowing the Treasury to give a guarantee of annual interest of 3 per cont, the Bill had originally proposed to do in reality more than was provided by the Standing Committee. Is it the fact that this change in the Bill originated the opposition by which the measure has been met? If hon. Members refer to the dry records of the proceedings of the Standing Committee they will see the way in which the Bill was met long before the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin was proposed, which enabled the Treasury to give aid to these undertakings by way of free grants and loans, as well as by way of guarantee. I will not dwell upon the number of Divisions which took place, though I think there were something like 25 on the first page of this Bill. I will not dwell on the number of Amendments standing in the names of some hon. Members, by which the Notice Paper was crowded, long before we came to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin, but I will remind the House of what happened on the first two clauses of this Bill. On the first clause, which merely recites that the Bill may be cited for all purposes as the Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889, a Debate was raised by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) and the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) on the principle of the Bill. They attempted to go into details, and they actually divided against that clause being inserted in the Bill. What happened on the first line of the second clause, which simply says, "This Act shall not extend to England and Scotland"? The hon. Member for Sunderland, as an opponent of the Bill, and an economist objecting to inroads upon the public purs9, proposed that the Bill should not be confined to Ireland, but should be extended to England and Scotland as well. And then, in spite of the elaborate machinery of the Act of 1883, and in spite of the proposals in the Bill, and still remaining in it, which gave additional security to the taxpayers that their money should be properly expended, the hon. Member for Sunderland gravely proposed in Committee—or at least concealed his laughter—that no light railways should be undertaken under the Bill until the plans and estimates had been first submitted to Parliament and a Vote taken for the grant proposed to be made. These were the kind of Amendments by which this Bill was sought to be defeated in the Standing Committee. Who were the Members prominent in that work? The hon. Member for Cavan—the leader of the Party—who on one clause sought to occupy the time of the Committee with a recitation of the sections in the existing Acts of Parliament which apply to the construction of tramways in Ireland—much after the fashion in which, when I was Irish Secretary in 1875, he consumed four hours of the time of this House by reading through the sections of the Peace Preservation Act. The hon. Member was ably seconded in the Committee by his follower, the Member for Sunderland, and by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Craig). Speech after speech was made, and Amendment after Amendment, alike useless and unmeaning, was proposed. This Bill was met in a way which I can only fairly describe as a deliberate and avowed attempt to stop its progress, otherwise than by fair argument. The Chairman of the Committee, I think, is entitled to the gratitude of the House for the course he took with reference to these Amendments. I will venture to say that he acted on a principle which should be approved by every Member of this House who believes that our forms of procedure were intended to be used for the transaction of business and ought not to be abused in order to stop it. Her Majesty's Government believe that under the provisions of the Bill it will be perfectly competent for any Secretary to the Treasury to take ample means for safe guarding expenditure; we believe that the freedom given to the Treasury, greater, I admit, than it was in the original Bill, will be greatly to the benefit of the country, because it will insure that each scheme shall be considered and dealt with on its merits as may seem best to the Government of the day; and if the Government do not have regard to the interests of the taxpayers as well as to those of the districts to be benefited by additional communication they will be subject properly to the censure of the House of Commons.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

The right hon. Gentleman has not conveyed much information to the House upon the points of contention raised by my hon. Friends. He has favoured us with a lecture upon our course of conduct here and elsewhere. I may venture to tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he would adopt a more suave and agreeable manner, and not lecture and bully us, we might listen more respectfully to what he has to say. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee observed that this Bill had almost become a now Bill. To that the right hon. Gentleman replied that the only change was that whereas under the original Bill free grants might be given to railways, the only free grants or guarantees which can be given under the Bill as it stands are what the Treasury may decide to give.

* SIR M. H. BEACH

I did not say the only change. I said the main change, which had been made a grave subject of complaint.

MR. STOREY

I, of course, accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement, though it does not accord with the note I took at the time. I want to point out that this is a great, but by no means the only change that is complained of. What we complain of, and what we shall continue to complain of, is that, whereas under the Bill as it originally stood, the guarantee could only be given in cash to the promoters, and under safeguards for the British taxpayer and for the locality, the Bill as it now stands not only gives a guarantee, but the Treasury may, if it likes, pay cash down; and, with one exception, all the guarantees which the public and the locality have for the proper construction of the line, for its being carried on, and for the non-inflation of the capital, and all the other provisions which were in the original Bill, have all disappeared. We allege that this Bill has never been duly considered, and, therefore, we ask that it be considered by a Committee of the Whole House. There was no discussion on the First Reading; there was a statement by the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading; and then there was a discussion, not of a very severe or extended character, which took part of two nights; and from that day to this the House has had no cognisance of this Bill. In the ordinary course of things this Bill ought to have been presented to a Committee of the Whole House. ["No, no!"] I challenge hon. Gentlemen opposite to cite one instance in which a politically-contentious Bill has been sent to the Grand Committee. If the Chairman of the Committee had been hare I should have been quite willing to have made him my witness as well as the other hon. and learned Gentleman who took the Chair in his absence, both staunch supporters of the Government. They would have said without hesitation that this was not a Bill which ought to have been sent to a Grand Committee in the month of August. When we got to the Grand Committee on Trade, the right hon. Gentleman says we met the Bill with severe and prolonged opposition, taking no less than 25 Divisions on the first part of the Bill. I admit it. I opposed the Bill from the first, and I mean to oppose it to the last. The hon. Member for Dundee was not opposed to the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire was warmly in its favour. But the conduct of the Chairman and Members of the Government in sustaining him was such that those hon. Members turned against them and for us who were opposing the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says these Divisions took place long before my hon. Friend the Member for Dublin's Amendment was put to the Committee. But was not that Amendment proposed to be accepted by the Solicitor General for Ireland before ever the Committee met? It was down on the Paper; it was not allowed; we saw what was going to happen, and it was therefore that we prolonged our opposition to this part of the Bill, because we knew very well that the second part would never be before us at all. May I press upon the Government this fact, that the bulk of this Bill was never discussed in Committee at all. How many Amendments were there in Committee after we left? They were all a happy family then. The Solicitor General for Ireland had but to lift his finger, and they willingly agreed to anything, but not more willingly than his ancient enemies, who, smitten on one cheek by the present Government, are now exhibiting the most meek and quiet spirit, and are content to receive from the hands of those who smote them and insulted what they have to give. The right hon. Gentleman rather reflected upon me, because he said I had taken a very exceptional course against this Bill. The Bill was a bad Bill in my judgment. I have never concealed that opinion. I will just make one quotation, as showing what it is we object to. The Freeman's Journal has an interesting paragraph which is well worthy the attention of the House:— The money properly employed would doubtless prove a boon, but as Ireland is now governed, we are certain that, as regards some of the projects in which a large share of money will be spent, it might as well be devoted to digging bog holes in the nearest bog and filling them up again. The gang of officers of the Board of Works and sharp company promoters —we could guess some of the names—would make a profit; some shopkeepers about the new works would benefit by the navvies; and the country at large would ultimately pay for all. I would not call the officers of the Board of Works a gang, for it is not a very pleasing word, but the paragraph which I have read is undoubtedly true. Two reasons maybe stated for re-committing the Bill. One is that, if public money is to be given at all, it ought to be given to existing railways about which something is known; and if we are to deal with promoters, the guarantee to be given them should be an annual payment for a limited number of years. In the second place, if Her Majesty's Government are determined to proceed with this measure, they ought at least to agree to incorporate into it those safeguards which the Royal Commission suggested. That Commission, in their Report, pointed out why the Act of 1883 was a failure, and suggested remedies which were adopted in the drafting of the original Bill. I desire to move Amendments and new clauses to carry out these objects; but the procedure adopted by the Government has put great obstacles in my way. I and my hon. Friends desired to insert safeguards against abuse. I am not going to take part in proposing frivolous Amendments. I heard what the President of the Board of Trade had to say about me, and I do not care that for what a Government officer has to say. I heard the charge, and dismiss it as it was spoken. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may say. "Why not move Amendments as it is?" I will tell him why. Some of my Amendments are in the shape of new clauses. You cannot give notice of these new clauses. Care was taken that I should have no opportunity of giving notice, and now that the First Lord of the Treasury proposes to continue this discussion, I am prevented from giving notice of them for to-morrow. After that exhibition of his astuteness, it may now honestly be said that the Government, after doing all they could to defeat the Bill, are at last doing all they can to carry it. There are four or five guarantees for the public which I think the Solicitor General could even yet introduce into this Bill. There is nothing new in them. They were in the original Bill. He himself accepted them and must have thought them desirable, if not necessary. I ask him now whether he cannot shorten these proceedings by adopting some of these safeguards? First, we think that the opinion of any locality as to whether a certain guarantee shall be given should be decided by a popular vote. Next, in order that the capital should not be unduly inflated by promoters, we propose that an Inspector of the Board shall report on the capital raised and expended. We also object to the clause providing that the expenses of the promoters shall be paid for out of the capital raised. Where you have such a provision the expenses are sure to be extremely large. I should further like to know what is to be done with these railways in the event of their proving, in some cases, failures. Who is to get the benefit of making these non-paying lines out of the public funds? They will not have any appreciable effect in developing the country. It will be the landlords who, if anyone, will mainly benefit, and therefore it will be quite fair if the Bill provides that no railway shall be made save where the landlords gratuitously give the required land. I think it will be found that when the Chief Secretary proceeds to carry out this precious Bill, such landlords as Mr. Olphert, who has depopulated districts by evictions, will get a handsome sum of money for allowing the promoters to carry a railway through his estate. But if the landlords are to get the benefit, they should make the sacrifice. In committee I was unreasonable enough to suggest that every bit of the laud should be acquired at 16years' purchase; I was laughed at. I ought to have been laughed at for proposing so large a sum. If I were to give my honest opinion, I would say that every bit of agricultural, pasture, bog, and mountain land required for the railways should willingly and cheerfully be given up to the State for nothing. Will the Solicitor General for Ireland introduce a clause into the Bill that it shall be part of the bargain that the land shall be acquired at from 15 to 16 years' purchase? That is an economical proposition. ["No!"] Then ten years, five years; I am not at all particular on the point. What I want to be at is this. I know something of what has happened in England and Ireland. I know that many a time enormous prices has been paid for the land, while the landlord was the sole beneficiary under the railway. I ask the attention of the House to this fact, although I cannot hope to move the flinty hearts of the Treasury Bench. They know well that they have got the majority of votes, and that they have got the votes of the majority of Irish Members, through the new alliance which has taken place between them and their ancient oppressors. We Englishmen, with an honourable phalanx from Ireland to help us, are left to do battle as we may. If the Government cannot agree to the bulk of the Amendments which have been hurriedly put upon the Paper in the last day or two, will they take up one or two points mentioned during the discussion, and join with us in making the Bill as good as possible? The right hon. Gentleman was very severe upon me for objecting to the application of the principles of this Bill to England and Scotland. Cannot he see that the bottom is knocked out of my arguments if he can cone to me and say, "We are willing to apply this to any part of the country that needs it." If the Government will only assent to some of my Amendments so that we can secure the interests of the ratepayers, they will probably find that the period to be devoted to this Bill will be very much less prolonged than if they present a Bill which their own sense tells them is manifestly and grotesquely incomplete. It would be-very easy by taking five or six clauses from the old Bill to make the present Bill more acceptable than it is. If the Government prove obdurate, nothing remains to us, even at the risk of physical endurance, but to protest against a Bill which we certainly believe to be disadvantageous to Ireland and unfair to the British taxpayer.

* MR. CHANCE

I wish to say, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the House, a word on the financial aspect of this Bill. I was not a Member of the Grand Committee, but I understand it was stated very frequently and distinctly to that Committee that the grant would only be £600,000. I would call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that Clause 6 proposes £12,000 by way of annuity. That capitalised at 3 per cent is £1,386,000. Then under Sub-section 4 of Clause 6 you grant in addition a bulk sum of £600,000, which makes £1,986,000. Actuarially, the sum available for these light railways would be rather more than £1,986,000. It is not fair to calculate it at 3 per cent. Probably the annuities will cost the Exchequer something less; and therefore the real sum to be guaranteed is over two millions. I quite admit that £22,000 of that annuity has already been guaranteed, but the fact that the whole sum has not been applied for shows that the machinery of the Act of 1883 has fallen through. The sum of £22,000 capitalised is rather more than £726,000. That has already been granted by Parliament, but it is still in the coffers of the Treasury, and would remain there but for this Bill, which removes the safeguards. The House is practically asked to grant £2,000,000 on a certain representation. When the Bill went into Committee there was a complete change of front, and the right hon. Baronet had merely to call upon his followers and they proceeded to swallow their principles. The Bill as originally drawn was by no means a bad Bill; at least it attempted to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, and a machinery was introduced for ascertaining whether the people of the locality interested dissented from, or assented to the proposed railway. But this and other provisions, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners, were struck out. I protest most distinctly against granting £2,000,000 of public money on the Report of a Committee, the Chairman of which undoubtedly and distinctly acted in violation of the rules and precedents of this House.

* MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not justified in making that observation.

* MR. CHANCE

I withdraw it, Sir, only I thought there had already been an expression of opinion in this House upon the subject without rebuke by English Members. But the course which the Chairman of the Committee took resulted in the abandonment without discussion of a large number of Amendments. I do not know whether I am in order in making a comment of that kind. I am not commenting on the action of the Committee, and am willing to withdraw any expressions I may have used that may be regarded as having gone in that direction. I think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has considerably understated the case. As the Bill originally stood, promoters other than public companies could only get annual guarantees. They could thus get a dividend of 3 per cent guaranteed by the Treasury, and reading the Bill along with the Act of 1883, that guarantee would be wholly conditional on the future working of the line, the guarantee disappearing the moment the line was not worked. That was not a very large undertaking, but small as it might be, the Government, in introducing the Bill, closely safeguarded the grant. All the safeguards have however, disappeared, and it is now proposed that instead of having that guarantee of 3 per cent, the promoters, as to whose honesty and respectability inquiry would be difficult, should have an advance in the shape of a capital sum from the Treasury. This leads us to the discussion of a very curious question arising on this Bill. Let me put the matter in the shape of an illustration. Let us suppose the promoters, as they can do under Clause 3 of the Bill, should go to the district Grand Jury and ask for a 5 per cent guarantee on a capital of £5,000. Upon obtaining that they would be able under Clause 4 to go to the Treasury and get an advance of £100,000 for the purpose of making the line. That is a possible case. Supposing they then make the line, and that that line, if constructed in a properly selected district, has the effect of so developing the resources of that district as to become a profitable undertaking to the promoters, they will only be bound to repay to the barony the sum actually advanced on a 5 per cent guarantee, and having repaid the advance made by the barony the whole profit on the undertaking will go into their pockets. That seems to me to be a very strong case, and I should have thought the Government would have been able to produce some clause that would avoid the state of things that would arise, if, in the somewhat unlikely case of these lines proving profitable, after repaying the barony what it had advanced and according reasonable dividends to the shareholders on the private capital of the company, they should take power to return to the Treasury the sum received from the Consolidated Fund. But no condition of this sort has been introduced, and as it stands the Bill, as I have already said, would enable the promoters to take the profits on £100,000 or £105,000. Shares in some of these lines might hereafter become as valuable as shares in the New River Company, and those who had put down £1 might find it worth £100; or £5,000 might grow to £150,000. I was at one time puzzled to know what was the object of the Government in forcing this Bill upon the House—a Bill involving nearly £2,000,000—at a time when a quarter of a million properly applied would put an end to the terrible state of things existing on three or four estates in Ireland, and enable Her Majesty's Government to lock up the Crimes Act. But their object is perfectly clear now. In the first place, it is to benefit men like Mr. Olphert and the Marquess of Clanricarde, who will get a fine sum for their land, inasmuch as care has been taken in the Bill to secure that compensation shall not be awarded by a jury. Under the old system, when compensation for land compulsorily taken was assessed by the Railway Arbitrators, it was open to the company to resort to a jury. I have an Amendment on the Paper which would prevent such a thing as the arbitrators giving gentlemen like Mr. Olphert 25 or 30 years' purchase for land not really worth 6d. per acre. I say the Bill is a bad one, and will create much dissension on both sides of this House. I trust it may not fully realise all my anticipations, and I think that the best thing that could be done would be to enable us in Committee to re-imp0se the safeguards which the Government at first thought necessary, and which the Commissioners who reported on public works in Ireland also thought necessary.

* THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Madden, Dublin University)

I think the House will agree that all the issues, raised in the Bill have been fully debated, and I only rise in consequence of some questions put by one or two hon. Members who have addressed the House. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seemed to be under the impression that some additional burden might be placed on the Treasury. There is not to be a greater sum than £42,000 given annually. The annual sum is cut down if the capital sum is increased and vice versâ. I might also point out that that portion of the Bill has not been altered in the Grand Committee.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

How is the excess on the £42,000 arrived at?

* MR. MADDEN

There will be no excess whatever. It has been stated that the safeguards against inflated capital have been dropped out of the Bill; but if the hon. Member who made that statement looks at the 7th section he will find that the safeguards which already exist under the previous Acts have been materially added to. The Bill consisted of four parts, and in the Grand Committee we were face to face with the fact that it took 24 Divisions and five days to dispose of one page of the Bill, and it therefore became obvious that at the late period of the Session at which we have arrived it was impossible to deal with the remaining 20 pages, and therefore at the earliest possible moment I announced that the Government did not intend to proceed with the whole Bill.

MR. STOREY

Did not the Government agree to the hon. Member for Dublin's Amendment before going in Committee at all?

* MR. MADDEN

That is absolutely irrelevant. I think that, having regard to the fact of what occurred in Committee, there is not the smallest foundation for the Motion before the House.

* MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

It is not the case that Part II. of the Bill was withdrawn in consequence of the opposition with which the Government was confronted in the Committee, inasmuch as it was not withdrawn until long after that opposition had ceased. It was quite competent for the Government to have rushed Part II. through the Committee, as they rushed the rest of the Bill through. They have adopted none of those safeguards which the Royal Commission recommended them to adopt. There is not a supporter of the Bill on this side of the House who does not believe that a large sum will be wasted. [Cries of "No!"]

* SIR J. M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)

I do not.

MR. HALLEY STEWART

Perhaps the hon. Member does not attach the same meaning as I do to the term "wasted," but I am quite sure hon. Members below the Gangway know that a large sum of this money will find its way into the pockets of the worst and most vicious class of company promoters. Some of the Amendments proposed, and to which hon. Members on the opposite side of the House were distinctly favourable, were rejected because it was thought that the measure was being obstructed by other hon. Members. A spirit of absolute partisanship characterised the proceedings of the Committee. I shall certainly support the Motion that the Bill be re-committed.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

One of the inconveniences arising from the way in which this Bill has been treated in Committee upstairs is that Clause 6 is about as confused and unintelligible a clause as it would be possible to put on the Paper. For instance, in Sub-clause 1 it is most distinctly stated that, in addition to the £43,000 a year, the capital sum of £600,000 may be spent.

The House divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 39.—(Div. List, No. 319.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered.

* MR. SPEAKER

The Amendments standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) are out of order, as they go beyond the scope of the Bill. The hon. Member proposes to alter the whole machinery of the Tramways Act of 1883.

A Clause (Application of existing enactments,)—(Mr. Chance,)—brought up, and read the first time and second time, amended, and added.

Another Clause (Appointment of receiver under 30 and 31 Vic. c. 127,46 and 47 Vic. c. 43.)—(Mr. Crag,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

* MR. MADDEN

I cannot assent to this proposal. As I stated in Committee, I consider some of the Amendments which have been placed on the Paper to be of very considerable value, but, owing to the shortness of the time at our disposal, it is impossible to take-them. I think the best course would be to postpone them until next year, when I propose to introduce a Bill which I hope will be of a non-contentious character.

* MR. CHANCE

Under the old law if a railway company got into difficulties its creditors could seize its rolling stock. Of course that was a troublesome thing from a public point of view, and the five sections of the Railway-Companies Act of 1867 were passed to-provide that a Receiver might be appointed to collect the rates and tolls so as to prevent the seizure of the rolling stock and chattels. This new clause-proposes to include the sections in the Bill. Unless it is adopted these small undertakings, which are sure to get into difficulties, will be liable to have their rolling stock seized every seven days. I hope the House will not consent to the rejection of the clause without, hearing from some supporter of the measure an intelligible statement of the reason why the Government oppose it.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

I think the Government will be well advised if they accept this Amendment, which appears to me to be essentially reasonable.

MR. BIGGAR

The contention of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland seems to be that they ought not to accept a reasonable Amendment, because it will occupy time. It seems, to me that the measure could be quite-as well settled this Session as partly postponed till next Session. I am told that the clause is similar to one proposed by the confidential adviser of the Solicitor General for Ireland.

The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes. 147.—(Div. List, No. 320.)

Another Clause (General rules,)—(Mr. Craig,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. CRAIG (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

This clause will require some verbal, alterations, but before I explain them, I should like to know what position the Government will take up in regard to it.

* MR. MADDEN

This clause is taken from the original Bill proposed by the Government, to Part II. of which it properly applied. But the clause is inapplicable to this Bill because there are no matters in the Bill to which it can refer. The difference between the two cases is this, that in the original measure the insertion of the power to make general rules was appropriate to, and in harmony with, the structure of the Bill, while these general rules are not required under this Bill.

* MR. CHANCE

The Solicitor General for Ireland falls—if I may be permitted to say so—into a complete error when he suggests that this proposed new clause would only give power to make rules as to matters prescribed in the Act. Do I understand him to allege that there are no matters directed to be done by this Act as to which these rules could apply? Surely there are a number of purposes in the Act which would come under this clause. There are the applications to the Grand Jury which it will in future be possible to make both at the Summer and the Autumn Assizes. Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman should bear in mind that the last clause of this Act incorporates the Acts of 1860, 1861, 1871, and 1883. Do the Government allege that the procedure under these Acts is in a satisfactory condition? I do not see how they can, in face of the statement of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland in the second part of the Report of 1888: "That the present procedure is unsatisfactory and involved," and in face, too, of their recommendation that it should be altered, that all these Acts should be consolidated and that a fresh Act should be brought in. If this proposed clause is carried the Lord Lieutenant in Council will have power to make rules for procedure under the Consolidated Acts, and I ask the Government to accept this proposal and enable new rules to be made with a view to improving the present irrational and involved method of procedure.

The House divided:—Ayes 37 Noes 149.—(Div. List, No. 321.)

MR. CRAIG

I think it will be my duty to press the next clause which stands in my name. This also has been taken from the Bill originally brought in by the Government, and I contend that it involves a very important principle, inasmuch as it provides for a popular vote.

Another Clause (Assent of occupiers in benefited district,)—(Mr. Craig,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

* MR. MADDEN

There is, no doubt, truth in the statement that this clause is taken from Part II. of the original Bill, but in that Bill it was applicable to a totally different state of things. It is absolutely unnecessary in the present condition of affairs. I would remind the House that under the former Bill provision was made for a novel mode of constructing tramways with a Treasury guarantee, and as there was also provision for local guarantees the Government thought it advisable, in introducing this new system, that the inhabitants of the locality should have some voice in the matter, hence they introduced this clause in the second part of the Bill as introduced. Now, however, promoters must proceed under the Act of 1883. Now that Act enabled the Grand Jurors and the Privy Council to place on the localities concerned far greater burdens than can possibly be imposed under this Act, because not only was the baronial guarantee intended to cover the cost of maintaining the line, but it also covered the entire capital necessary for its construction. Under this Bill the Treasury take power to come to the aid of the locality, and relieve it of a considerable proportion of the burden, and surely there is now no necessity for the ratepayers to be consulted in a special manner. I may add that in Committee an overwhelming majority of the Members representing the class in whose interests this clause is said to be proposed, rejected it.

MR. STOREY

The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman amounts to this. Inasmuch as under the Act of 1883, where a guarantee was given an appeal to local opinion was provided for, now that the locality is to be aided out of the public purse, there is no necessity for an appeal. Now, I submit that you are going to impose a new charge on the locality under this Bill, and there- fore why before you do so should you not consult the ratepayers of the locality? Why did the Government make any such provision in their original Bill? What was the opinion of your Royal Commissioners on this very point? I take my stand on that opinion, and doing so, I do not need to listen to the views of hon. Members from Ireland. The Commissioners stated that one of the defects under the system of 1883 was that it involved taxation without representation, for the Grand Jury was composed mainly of owners of land, whilst the county cess fell largely on the occupiers. The landlords, in fact, composed the Grand Jury which had to decide whether the guarantee—the burden of which fell on the tenants—should be given. Now, I say that the proposal we are discussing is a reasonable one, and unless the Government has determined to accept no suggestion whatever from these Benches, they ought not to oppose this clause, which merely brings them back to the paths of reason and common sense.

SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy)

The Solicitor General for Ireland admitted that if a burden were to be put on the ratepayers they ought to be consulted. But the fact is, this burden is going to be put on the British taxpayer, who in the end will have to pay for the making of these Irish railways.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I have no concern for the pockets of the British taxpayers. That does not in the least affect me when I remember you are only giving us a few paltry thousands in return for the hundreds of millions you have extracted from our country in the past. While I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that this Amendment cannot be accepted as it is framed, I do think the occupiers should have some voice in the matter. I have not the least sympathy with the opposition of the hon. Member for Sunderland, for he and his friends allow a million and a half of money to be voted for police purposes in Ireland without uttering a word of protest, while they exercise their ingenuity in opposing and obstructing a measure which gives a few thousands for the benefit of Ireland. Of course I approve of the principle of giving some representation to the ratepayers, and I think the Government would act wisely in accept- ing some of the Amendments on the Paper, but with regard to this particular Amendment, I do think it enforces the principle in a way which is not applicable under this Act.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

As to our voting one-and-a-half millions for expenditure upon police in Ireland, the hon. Member should remember that some of us are as much opposed to that expenditure as he is himself, and have often voted against it, so that his words fall with no reproach upon us. When the Chief Secretary brought in the Bill he rather plumed himself upon a clause similar to this, and to be consistent he ought now to vote for the Amendment, or else he should explain why he has changed his view. When he introduced the Bill he laid stress upon this as an essential clause. Let us hear what he has to say in explanation of the change that has come o'er the spirit of his dream. He with his Party supported this clause on the Second Reading of the Bill. Are they going to vote against it now? I shall be equally curious to see how Irish Members vote. They have always advocated the right of the taxpayer to have some control over expenditure in Ireland, and it is one of the great principles in which we back them. If I were an Irish cesspayer and my Parliamentary Representative did not vote for the application of the principle of local control in this clause, I should have something to say on the subject when the time for Election came round. I call upon the Members of the Party opposite who voted for this clause on the Second Reading to vote for it again, or show cause why they turn their backs upon themselves as they did in reference to the Tithes Bill. I hope my hon. Friend will carry his Motion to a Division, and I shall certainly support him.

MR. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid)

It is a pity the Government do not accept this Amendment. It is but a fragment of security against the taxpayers being called upon to maintain works they, in the first place, may consider wholly unnecessary. The Solicitor General says that the people would be likely to be biassed in favour of the scheme before them, and so they would be, but that is no reason why they should not have this small chance of expressing their opinion on the representation made by the Grand Jury. The reproaches of the hon. Member for Long-ford against Radical Members that they did not object to the Police Vote are unreasonable.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The hon. Member is repeating a reference made by the hon. Member behind me, and, perhaps, I may be allowed to explain that what I said, or intended to say, was that I never observed this strenuous Opposition on the part of the Radical Party to the expenditure of a million and a half upon police, and half a million on a form of education we do not require, and a number of other items; and yet they attempt to prevent us from getting this miserable little benefit that the Government are willing to give us.

MR. PHILIPPS

We voted night after night with the Irish Members, and if they had not themselves taken up so much time in speeches we should have spoken for them, too. Nobody can complain that the Debates on the Irish Police Vote require lengthening.

MR. MURPHY (Dublin, St. Patrick's)

I am strongly in favour of the principle contained in the clause, and would wish to see it carried out as applied to any extension of the local guarantee. But there is no proposal to extend the power of guarantee by the Grand Jury, beyond what is contained in the Act of 1883, and, therefore, I shall not vote for the Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR

I think the Government ought to agree to this Amendment, because it formed part of their original Bill; and it seems to me rather stupid to propose a clause, adhere to it through the SECOND READING of the Bill, and then to throw it out without reason 10 days afterwards. I do not think the reasons assigned by the Solicitor General are entitled to much consideration. In relation to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said of the Act of 1883, it must be remembered that that Act was forced through the House without a Committee discussion, just as this Bill was forced through Standing Committee; and in point of fact the Act of 1883 does not represent the deliberate opinion of the House of Commons after discussion of its details. The Solicitor General also appeared to lay it down that no increased liability will attach to the ratepayers; but, undoubtedly, there will be a greater liability under this Bill. If a scheme breaks down, and does not pay its working expenses, through the dishonesty of promoters, the ratepayers will be liable to serious responsibility, and I certainly think they ought to have a voice in relation to such matters. Now, as to what my hon. and learned Friend says about getting a sum of money from the British taxpayers, I hold that under this Bill we are getting nothing at all. The promoters of these schemes will get the money, but we, the ratepayers, will not be benefited one penny; indeed, the ratepayers will have heavy responsibilities laid upon them. Surely it is reasonable that the ratepayers should have some safeguard, some opportunity of expressing their opinion beforehand against the imposition of a dishonest impost. Another point the Solicitor General made was that a number of Irish Members supported the promoters of this Bill through all the Divisions in Committee. That is perfectly true; but I am afraid they were not thinking of the ultimate burden that may fall upon the ratepayers, but were influenced by the canvassing of local shopkeepers in favour of some possible local railway scheme. The Government very adroitly keep expectation alive as you hold a bundle of hay before a donkey. They take care not to give any information as to particular schemes they propose to favour. Influenced by the hope that a particular district in which they are interested will get a share of this expenditure, hon. Members support the proposals of the Government whether they agree with them or not, whether they are right or wrong, and this, as an expression of public opinion, is entitled to very small consideration.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

I certainly think the Amendment might be accepted, but I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) in his reference to pressure brought to bear upon Irish Members in support of the Bill did not state his case with his characteristic accuracy. Whatever pressure there has been has been so small as to be almost inappreciable, and I do not think it has influenced any Member in his judgment of the Bill. I might mention that the only Union which has passed a resolution in favour of any particular line of railway under this Bill is the Cavan Union. No doubt it is desirable that there should be the means of giving expression to the opinion of the cesspayers on any particular scheme before it is passed, there is undoubtedly a danger to be safeguarded. It may not be wise for the Government to schedule the district to which the Bill shall apply, but if you have not some check upon the Grand Jury you may have the engineering and financing ingenuity of promoters sanctioned, and expenditure wasted, upon work that should never have been undertaken. In the event of failure, if the line does not pay, then a certain portion of the loss falls upon the occupiers, and certainly they will have good reason to complain if they have no check or control over a scheme which, in its inception, they may have considered unjustifiable. Under the circumstances, I hope the principle of the Amendment will be accepted.

* MR. CHANCE

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dublin that the Bill does not throw upon the ratepayers such a heavy burden as was imposed by the Act of 1883, and I admit also that in this direction a safeguard was introduced in Committee, and that whereas under the Act of 1883 promoters might ask the Grand Jury to guarantee the whole of the capital, undoubtedly under the Amendment of my hon. Friend this cannot be done; the promoters can only ask for a guarantee of a portion of the capital, and so far, of course, liability is lessened. Under the second part I admit there is no real liability. I confess I do not quite know what is to happen if the Railway Company fail to work the line, but I presume the draftsmen did not anticipate that such a thing could occur.

* MR. MADDEN

The Treasury can get a guarantee from the Railway Company.

* MR. CHANCE

Well, that may be very valuable or not, but I admit that liability does not fall on the county. If a fresh company promote a line, undoubtedly they will be bound to make a working agreement, and in that case I suppose the Treasury will look into that agreement. But under the third branch of this proposal this is not so. The promoters may come to the Grand Jury and ask for a guarantee on a limited portion of the capital, and this will have to be met by additions to the county cess. I notice that the Commission on Public Works advise that there should be no addition to the county cess in respect to any guarantee above 6d. in the £1. Now, the Grand Jury are not a popular body, they do not pay the county cess; it falls upon the occupiers who are not represented on the Grand Jury; and, therefore, we have the position that one body imposes taxation without having to pay a penny in discharge of the liability, and the people who have to discharge the whole of the liability have no representation whatever on the body which imposes the taxation. Again, I have to refer to the Report of the Commission. The Commissioners reported that undoubtedly it was desirable and necessary that if a grant were to be made, due regard should be had to local responsibility, and the opinion of the county should be taken. I admit that the method pointed out by the Commissioners was defective. They proposed that the opinion of Presentment Sessions should be taken. Now that is a tribunal composed of an unlimited number of Magistrates and only six of the highest ratepayers of the district, and these, of course, would be always outvoted, so that would give no real representation of the ratepayers. As the Bill was originally drawn, I suppose upon a principle settled by the Solicitor General, I am bound to confess there was a complete representation of the ratepayers. If the ratepayers vote in favour of a scheme, then the ratepayers cannot object to the consequences. Further, I may point out that there was a limitation to 6d. in the £1. Now that clause is dropped out and the guarantee left unlimited, it seems to me only reasonable that the ratepayers should have a representative voice, and there would be no difficulty in revising the wording of this clause and securing that. In the Standing Committee this clause was rejected, I think, with 12 other Amendments upon one question put, and I think the reason that influenced many Members was that they regarded these Amendments as directed to the defeat of the Bill, and were determined that the Bill should pass. But that danger no longer exists. The Bill is pretty safe now. We have had a number of Divisions, and these have disclosed such large majorities that there is little doubt of the Bill passing to-night or to-morrow. The insertion of this clause will in no way imperil the Bill; it is a clause that was included in the Bill as originally introduced; it carries out the recommendation of the Commission on Public Works. In the view of supporters of the Bill it is a reasonable clause, and I really do not see why the Government should not accept it.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

No doubt in this particular the Bill is not so good as it was when it was introduced. I understand the limitation of liability to 6d. in the £1 is removed, and the guarantee is practically unlimited. It is also the fact that as the Bill originally stood we had a popular veto. In Committee, when these matters were raised, I spoke and voted with the opposition, and for several days continued my endeavours to improve the Bill, as I thought, until I found myself among a knot of Members who were perfectly determined to wreck the Bill, and then my opposition came to an end. The British taxpayer is better protected than before, but the only person who is not protected is the Irish cesspayer, on whom the liability will come. The Government have the security that the barony will maintain and work the line, so the Imperial taxpayer has no additional burden beyond the capital sum. It is due to the efforts of our Radical friends that the Bill is less satisfactory than it was; and though I do not object to the principle of this Amendment, still I cannot by my vote encourage the persistent opposition to the Bill which has been practised throughout.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I will make no remark as to the multiplication of Amendments; but as to this particular Amendment, I will only say that it is not well adapted to the Bill as it stands. It is defective in point of drawing.

An hon. MEMBER: It is the Government clause.

MR. SEXTON

Yet it is defective, because it is directed to a condition of facts that do not now exist in the Bill. It embodies the principle of popular control, to which, when fairly submitted to the House, I am bound to give assent. I cannot forget that the Standing Orders of this House require that local assent shall be given before any proposal to throw pecuniary liability on a district is submitted to Parliament. I cannot admit that the Grand Jury, a non-elective body, or the Privy Council, or both together, afford local ratepayers due protection, and I think they are entitled by vote to protect themselves against proposals to place liability upon their districts. I do not oppose the Bill; but I urge the Government to consider whether here or in another place they can insert a provision giving the ratepayers a representative voice in these matters.

MR. J. B. ROBERTS (Carnarvon, Eifion)

Whatever objection in point of form there may be to the clause in its application to the Bill as it now stands, no argument has been advanced why the burden, be it great or small, should be imposed upon the ratepayers without their consent.

The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 118.—(Div. List, No. 322.)

New Clause (Applications for Light Railways,)—(Mr. Jordan,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

* MR. MADDEN

I agree to this clause.

MR. STOREY

We look naturally with a suspicious eye on any agreement come to by the Government. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain this to us?

* MR. MADDEN

I have no objection to remove the hon. Gentleman's suspicions. It provides that where an application has been made at the Summer Assizes of 1889 the Bill shall, as far as it is applicable, extend to such railway. It is not very likely that there will be such a case, but there may be. The clause is perfectly harmless in my opinion.

* MR. CHANCE

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to add words providing that it shall not apply to any case in which an application for a guarantee has already been made?

* MR. MADDEN

The only objection I have to that is that it is unnecessary. But I will not oppose such an Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the proposed clause, to add at the end— Provided always that the clause shall not apply where an application for a guarantee has already been made before the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Chance.)

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

MR. JORDAN (Clare, W.)

I object to that Amendment. I think it will spoil the sense altogether.

Question put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."

MR. O'DOHERTY

The Amendment which has been agreed to, in my opinion, entirely destroys the effect of the clause. I am not sure that my hon. Friend did not know this. I think it is a case, not of manslaughter, but of wilful murder. As the clause stands now it cannot apply to any conceivable case.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added.

MR. BIGGAR

I propose, in Clause 2, page 1, line 8, after "council," to insert— If petitioned to do so by a resolution of the Boards of Guardians of the district it is proposed to tax, said resolution to be come to on notice to the Guardians that such motion is to be proposed. My object is the same as that of the former proposal, which was negatived. It is a matter of very substantial importance. I think the opinion of those who are best competent to judge of the need of constructing one of these lines, namely, the people of the district, should be consulted before any decision is come to. I admit that under the proposal which was negatived the process suggested was very expensive and cumbrous. The same thing cannot be said of the present proposal. Each member of the Board of Guardians would represent his own locality, and would be able to state, not only his own opinion, but what was likely to be the opinion of those whom he represented.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, after the word "council," to insert the words— If petitioned to do so by a resolution of the Boards of Guardians of the district it is proposed to tax, said resolution to be come to on notice to the Guardians that such motion is to be proposed.—(Mr. Biggar.)

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

MR. CHANCE

I am afraid that this Amendment will not be accepted in its present form, because one Board of Guardians out of many in a district might prevent a scheme being adopted. But I would put it to the Government whether it could not be accepted if it was modified, so as to provide for the assent of the majority of the Boards of Guardians. I admit that it would be a somewhat expensive and cumbersome process to submit these schemes to the vote of a whole district, but it would be neither to submit them to the Boards of Guardians. In mercy to those who desire these railways, I think it would be well that they should have the opportunity of discovering whether the county is against them or not. They would then at least be able to say that, when a line had been made, it had been the result of an expression of public feeling in favour of its construction. It would also enable the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council to discover pretty accurately what baronies were likely to object to join in the guarantee. I believe there was a certain amount of feeling on the opposite side of the House in favour of the previous Amendment, and I have no doubt it was only rejected because it was thought to be rather a cumbersome and heavy way of getting at the opinion of the locality.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)

As the House is aware, I have very considerable sympathy with the general principles with regard to popular control which have been enumerated on the other side of the House; and, in the Bills respecting drainage, and in this Bill as it went to the Committee, I gave practical expression to the opinions which I hold upon the subject. At the same time, I do not think the method proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), even as amended by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Chance), would prove convenient or effective. I do not think that the spectacle of Boards of Guardians meeting and quarrelling over any particular scheme of a light railway would be at all edifying, or be of much assist- ance to the Lord Lieutenant. Moreover, Boards of Guardians are not representative at all in the sense of the bodies I desired to call into existence. In the Bill as originally drafted I desired to obtain the opinion of the cesspayers, and the Boards of Guardians do not represent the cesspayers. Therefore, I do not think that the method proposed would give effective popular control.

MR. COSSHAM

I find that the practical proposal of the right hon. Gentleman in favour of giving popular control has now dwindled down to sympathy. If the right hon. Gentleman really desires to give some practical effect to his wish for popular control in this matter, let him devise some clause to do it. When the Bill was before the Committee I moved a clause for the purpose of giving the Guardians some control in connection with these railways. I did not consider they were the best body to choose, but they were the only body I could find in Ireland which at all represented popular opinion. I do ask the House to adopt the principle proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan, and I shall be glad myself to accept the limitation suggested by the hon. Member below me (Mr. Chance).

* MR. PINKERTON (Galway)

I cannot for the life of me see how an Irishman like the hon. Member below me (Mr. Chance) can try and obstruct a Bill of this kind.

* MR. SPEAKER

The observations of the hon. Member are not in order.

* MR. PINKERTON

I withdraw what I said. Owing to my experience of Boards of Guardians, I know the consequence will be such a confusion and diversity of opinion (hat it will be impossible, to carry any line through a district at all. All these Amendments are brought forward by the enemies of the measure, none of the proposals come from those who are desirous of seeing the Bill pass. I think the Government would do well to draft a clause, giving some sort of control to local opinion, but they would not be well advised in handing that control over to Boards of Guardians. I agree with the Chief Secretary, we should have continual conflict between the ex officio and the elected Guardians, and moreover in the congested districts a large proportion of the population being under the £4 rental, have no representation on the Boards of Guardians. The very persons whose condition the Bill is designed to improve, would be excluded from representation in the matter. Many Guardians will be anxious to have a line through a district in which they are interested, and you would by this Amendment play into their hands to the exclusion of the poorer districts. We have seen how the Cavan Guardians have passed a Resolution in favour of a particular scheme. I do not suppose it is the intention of the Government that money should be spent in the richer districts. I give them the credit of honesty of intentton in wishing to benefit the poorer districts, and this Amendment will simply put a difficulty in their way.

* MR. CHANCE

The people who are not represented on the Boards of Guardians do not either pay county cess.

* MR. PINKERTON

I am astonished to hear my hon. Friend say this, the poorest farmers in my district pay county cess. Though I am in favour of some form of popular representation I intend to support the Bill, even though it should have some defects. I shall vote with the Government on every Division against all opposition.

MR. STOREY

If nothing else results from these discussions they give us interesting revelations of the state of Ireland and what it will be when this Bill passes into law and the scramble commences among all sorts of persona for a share of this money. It is not our fault that this Amendment is not so good as others which have been rejected. There was an admirable Amendment proposed in Committee that included the representation of all occupiers, but we were not allowed to discuss it, and of course our proposals find life again in the House. In default of a better proposal, which was refused, we have this proposal that Boards of Guardians should be consulted. Knowing, as I do, that a large number of these Guardians are not elected, I agree it is a very questionable Court of Appeal, but it is better than nothing. ["No, no!"] I am sorry to hear an hon. Member deny that Irish Boards of Guardians are better than nothing. I say they are. They would be some kind of guarantee, though an insufficient one. I agree that it would defeat the purpose to have different Boards of Guardians sending counter resolutions, and I think the proposal should be confined to the Board of Guardians for the district.

MR. P. J. POWER (Waterford, E.)

I think that it is absolutely necessary that popular opinion should he tested to some extent, and, although I admit that the Board of Guardians is not the best test, still I maintain that their opinion is better than nothing. There is an objection that there will be more than one Board in the county; but that can be met by an alteration of phraseology. True, we have "scenes" at our Board meetings sometimes; but, on the whole, the business of the Guardians is well conducted. I think that a Board should discuss the proposal at a special meeting, else it might come on at the end of a long and tedious day's business. Let me say that, although I am in favour of the Bill generally, the House cannot be too cautious about all its provisions. I represent one of the Divisions of Water-ford, and we have now to pay £14,000 a year in respect to a railway constructed through our county, and this and other considerations make me most anxious that safeguards against future burdens should be provided. The whole of the £14,000 I mention falls upon the occupiers, and I should like to have such burdens divisible between owners and occupiers. In default of any better way of testing public opinion, I shall support the Amendment.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

My hon. Friend the Member for Waterford is Chairman of a Board of Guardians—one of the few Members on this side who with myself hold that position. I should say this would not be a bad Amendment if amended so as to apply to the one Board of Guardians only. Thus amended, it might be worthy of consideration.

* SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

I hope the Amendment will not be accepted; it will simply be an element of discord introduced, and an obstruction in the operation of the Bill.

The House divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 106.—(Div. List, No. 323.)

MR. PHILIPPS

The ground on which I move the Amendment which stands in my name is because it seems to me it is reasonable that some time should be fixed—I am not wedded to the time named in my Amendment—within which the pecuniary benefit offered by this Bill should be either taken advantage of, or definitely refused. I think that within six months people ought to make up their minds whether they want the benefit of the Act, but if the Solicitor General for Ireland thinks 12 months would be better, I am quite prepared to amend my Amendment accordingly. The Treasury should know, as soon as possible, what claims will be made under the Bill; and it is also reasonable that the House should know what the claims are, because other schemes may he proposed in future Sessions. No doubt the Chief Secretary for Ireland has other schemes in his mind for the benefit of Ireland, schemes which may, in the opinion of the House, confer more benefit on Ireland than the present. It might influence the House in refusing to vote other schemes if there was some liability outstanding under this scheme. Therefore, in the interest of other schemes, it is well we should know within some reasonable time the extent to which this Act is to be put into operation. Circumstances may alter from time to time, and in two or three years we may feel we are not called upon to let the Irish people have this money as a free gift.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words, "from time to time," and insert the words "at any time within six months from the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Philipps.)

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

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not insist upon pressing this Amendment to a Division. I think he will see that nothing is to be gained from the taxpayer's point of view by the introduction of the words he proposes. We may take it that when Parliament has said it is prepared to expend a capital sum of £600,000 on Irish Light Railways, the whole of that will be called up and will have to be paid. [Ironical cheers.] It is distinctly in that expectation, and I may say that hope, that the Government propose the Bill. I do not think, therefore, that to cut down the gift we propose to give to the less prosperous parts of Ireland, by a side wind, by fixing some limit of time within which demands may be made to the House, would be consonant with the general policy adopted.

* MR. CHANCE

I admit the right hon. Gentleman is correct to a certain extent, but I put it to him that there is a very serious object to be served by having some limit of time. I do not say six months, for I candidly confess that would be too short. Let me remind the Chief Secretary that this only applies to the making of the Order, and that the Order may prescribe certain number of years within which the Light Railway is to be constructed. In the Report of the Commissioners upon Public Works in Ireland, which was published last year, it is stated that the Tramways and Light Railways Acts are in a very unsatisfactory condition. It is pointed out that many of the Acts require to be amended, that many of the provisions are obsolete, and that in some respects the advances made under the Acts are not very well safeguarded. The Commissioners recommend that the Acts should be consolidated and amended, and that some reasonable and clear practice should be laid down in the case of Tramways and Light Railways. If we grant this money without any limitation of time, the money will be absolutely dedicated, not one penny could be got back; it would, be absolutely impossible for Parliament to revoke the gift. There is one safeguard I should like to see introduced—namely, some provision for the repayment of the advances from the Treasury to the ratepayers in the case of any schemes which proved fruitful. If such provision is to be made at all, it must be made before the money is advanced.

MR. STOREY

There is one reason to be urged in favour of this Amendment, namely, that it brings out the history of the money advanced under the Act of 1883. The right hon. Gentleman knows that under the Act of 1883 there was power to spend a certain amount of money. Up to the present a large sum has been expended, but it stands to reason that those who can come under the new Act and get cash down will never take the trouble to go under the old Act, under which they can only get a limited guarantee. I think 12 months might be more reasonable; if it were even two years I would not object. The right hon. Gentleman cannot object, because he tells us he fully expects this money, having been allocated by Parliament, will be all applied for. One hon. Gentleman told us he thought all the money would be applied for within 24 hours, and I believe it will be applied for 10 times over. We are very much in the same position in England as in Ireland. If a beneficent Government will offer any part of the United Kingdom cash down for anything to do with local works, why, of course, the probability is that the virtue of any part of the United Kingdom would be strained. I believe all the money will be applied for, and I believe the present Lord Lieutenant or the new one will be prepared to give any money to the people of Ireland if he can only keep them quiet. It seems to me we had better insert in the Bill words setting out that the application shall be made within the year. If my hon. Friend will assent, I will move to insert "12 months" for "six months."

MR. PHILIPPS

I agree.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

I beg to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend Mr. Philipps) as amended by the hon. Member for Sunderland. In the interest of the Chief Secretary and of the Government, some limit ought to be put on these grants. It is because I believe brute force and bribery will not work in Ireland that I support this Proposition.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words "from time to time," and insert the words "at any time within twelve months from the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Philipps.)

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

The House divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 25.—(Div. List, No. 324.)

MR. CHANCE

I beg to move the insertion of the words "upon an application in the prescribed manner" after the word "time" in line 9. I do not propose to press the Amendment if the Government object to it; but if they intend to provide any machinery by which popular opinion can be expressed on the schemes prior to their recognition by Order in Council, they will have no objection to the insertion of the words I suggest.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after the word "time," to insert the words "upon an application in the prescribed manner."—(Mr. Chance.)

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

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am afraid it is impossible to devise machinery that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman and his friends.

MR. CHANCE

I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name: it is simply a verbal Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after the word "certain," to insert the word "named."—(Mr. E. Robertson.)

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

* MR. MADDEN

I think this Amendment can hardly be taken apart from the other Amendments standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member, and he will admit those Amendments are other than verbal, that in fact they tend to introduce in the Bill a distinct principle, namely, the defining by the Bill of certain named districts. This is an Amendment leading up to subsequent Amendments which are objectionable from our point of view, but possibly necessary from the hon. and learned Member's point of view. We must object to the Amendment.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

I did not propose this Amendment as leading up to others, but simply to make it clear that the place should be named in the Order. However, after what the hon. Gentleman has said, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

I now beg to move to insert, in line 10, "within the Counties of Donegal, Mayo, Galway, and Kerry." The object of this Amendment is to limit in the Bill the local extent of the measure. It is quite clear it is not pretended that the whole of Ireland should have an interest in the Bill. The benefit is intended for certain localities, and I think the House in assenting to the measure should state what are the districts to which the measure is to apply. From the best information I have been able to obtain, the enumeration I have made exhausts the local necessities for the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after the word "places," to insert the words "within the Counties of Donegal, Mayo, Galway, and Kerry."—(Mr. E. Robertson.)

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

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think the hon. Gentleman is probably not far wide of the mark in saying the counties named are those which will largely benefit by the passing of the Bill; but at the same time it would, I submit, be a very great error on the part of the House to lay down any hard and fast line which would absolutely preclude the Parliamentary grant being employed for districts in other parts of Ireland really requiring it. It is perfectly true that what are called the congested districts are largely situated in the counties named, but it is not true they are wholly situated in those counties.

MR. STOREY

The right hon. Gentleman must admit there is something in the past transactions in Ireland which makes it very desirable that some such limitation as this should be inserted in the Bill. The Act of 1883, which was unlimited, was pressed through the House hastily for the purpose of benefitting congested districts of Ireland; and the Commissioners inform us, in their Report, that the Privy Council granted Orders for a short branch line to the Harbour of Carrickfergus, and for a suburban line from Dublin to Blessington, cases for which the Commissioners state "we should scarcely have thought an Imperial grant was desirable." [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman agrees that that was an improper use of the Act. I suppose that Act was badly used by a Liberal Government. That Act having been so used by a Liberal Government, the Chief Secretary cannot wonder that we wish to take precautions against the possibility of failure on the part of a Conservative Government. If we are going to spend the public money of Great Britain and Ireland upon portions of Ireland, it should be upon congested portions of Ireland only. I do not say my hon. and learned Friend's list of counties exhausts the list, and I sincerely hope hon. Members from Ireland will move additions; but however that may be, the hon. and learned Gentleman has hit the four worst counties, so far as our judgments go, and if he goes to a Division I shall support him.

COLONEL NOLAN

I represent the largest of the four counties named. Galway and the other counties named certainly require the assistance proposed by the Bill; but I must point out that the hon. and learned Gentleman throws by his Amendment an apple of discord amongst the Irish Members. I am afraid that if Donegal, Mayo, Galway, and Kerry are the only counties to be benefited, the Representatives of some other Irish counties will not continue their interest in the Bill. The hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) has taken up a very extraordinary attitude as regards the Bill, and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) has taken up a line of action which we all acknowledge, but regret. We are sorry that a man of his attainments in other respects should entertain such a deep-seated objection to water communication. But the Irish Members have been tolerably unanimous in respect to the Bill. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, in Committee three Irish Members supported and 16 opposed the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) in his opposition to the Bill, and I call that tolerable unanimity. I certainly think we ought to reject this Amendment as a somewhat insidious one.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I do not think the Government will thank the hon. and gallant Member for Galway for the support he has given them on this occasion. He has told the House with charming frankness that no Irish Member will vote for the Bill unless he is to get something out of it. Is it a fact that all the Irish Members want is money, and that all the Government want is to be able to go to Ireland and offer bribes here, there, and every- where? I had hoped the Government would have accepted this or a similar Amendment. I had hoped they would have shown some good faith by restricting the operation of the Bill to congested districts. The Government will undoubtedly put themselves in a very false position unless they accept some such Amendment. I have been studying the Report of the Royal Commission. Nothing can be more miserable reading. The Commissioners give us a long list of schemes of railways that do not pay, that never will pay, and perhaps that never were intended to pay. They show how money that was intended for poor and congested districts has been spent in other parts of the country where it was not required. I have also studied a pamphlet on the subject of railways sent to me by a very sincere well-wisher of Ireland—Mr. Tute. He has prepared a map showing what railways there are in the congested districts of Ireland, and I find that along one part of the coast of Donegal, which is regarded as a congested district, railways reach the sea at no less than 15 points. I therefore cannot admit there is such necessity for these railways as we are led to suppose. It is absurd to say that the making of more railways there will really develope fishing. I have been to Donegal. No doubt it is a very poor county. The people do not catch much fish, and they cultivate the land with the spade; indeed, I am not sure they are in such a civilised state that they can support or benefit by railways. Galway is a county of rocks and stones, and Kerry is similarly situated. There are intermediate counties; but my belief is that the list of my hon. and learned Friend really exhausts the congested parts of Ireland. If the Government mean to show their good faith they will accept the Amendment; but if, following the lead of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway, they are determined to have a Bill which will captivate as many Irish Members as possible they will, no doubt, reject the Amendment.

MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I also have been in Donegal. I happen to be the Representative of one of the four Divisions, and all I can say is that if I wanted a specimen of civilisation it is not to an ex-Indian official I should go but rather to Donegal. I can also give the hon. Gentleman a hint as to his utterances in this House, that if he desires Members to co-operate with him he should not make use of language foolishly and needlessly offensive——

SIR G. CAMPBELL

Sir, I apologise.

MR. A. O'CONNOR

With regard to this Amendment, I may say that whatever proposals are put forward for the extension of railway communication Donegal is one of the chosen counties. This seems to be recognised as a matter of course, and since the introduction of this Bill I have been inundated with letters from all quarters and from all sorts of people in reference to possible extensions of railway communication. I am bound to say that schemes and alternative schemes for Donegal seem to be already prepared, and not only for Donegal itself but for the large towns in adjoining counties, by people anxious to speculate with other people's money. For all that, I think limitation to specified counties, whether those should be four in number or more, would be a mistake, because if you limit the number of counties you also create a fixed idea that those counties should have an assured proportion in the sharing of public money, and it will be difficult for Dublin Castle to resist that idea. As to the four counties mentioned, in my judgment they do Dot include those counties where money would be most advantageously spent. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that Galway should be included, and for the last seven years he has striven to bring this about. But other counties have a reasonable claim to assistance besides those mentioned; and if you fix upon these four counties as the limit there are certain Irish Members, naturally enough—it is nothing to their discredit that it should be so—whose interest in the Bill will immediately diminish. I do not think we can reasonably expect the Government to accept this Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR

It is perfectly clear that the money will demoralise whoever gets it, and therefore I think it would he well to circumscribe the area of demoralisation, and then the counties outside that area will cease to beg for their share of the spoil.

The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 131.—(Div. List, No. 325.)

MR. E. ROBERTSON

Perhaps I may be allowed to say, in reference to my Amendments standing next on the Paper, that I put them down in connection with a line of policy as to which I intended to raise a definite issue. But as the new clause I wished to propose was ruled out of order, I presume these Amendments having relation to that clause are equally out of order. But I think the Government might accept the Amendment to line 10, which is to leave out the words "for the development of fisheries or other industries."

* MR. MADDEN

It is impossible for the Government to accept that Amendment. In the forefront of the Bill these objects are put forward as the essential reasons for the Bill, and as indicating the purpose the Government have in view. I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's Amendment as leading up to the policy he would advocate; but inasmuch as that has had to be abandoned, it is impossible to accept this Amendment.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

I do not move that Amendment, but I move the next, but with a considerable modification. As it stands, the Amendment is directed to confining the application of the proposals in the Bill to railways that maybe expected to pay 3 per cent; but I propose to modify that by limiting the Amendment to railways that will pay working expenses. The object of the Amendment is plain, and I do not think the Solicitor General ought to have any difficulty in accepting it. If he does, not, then he declares on the face of the Bill that the Government are prepared to grant this money for the construction of railways that will not pay working expenses.

Amendment proposed, in page I, line 11, after the word "industries," to insert the words "and that the earnings thereof may reasonably be expected to pay working expenses."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)

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

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment, because it is inexpedient to lay down a hard-and-fast rule of the kind suggested. There may be railways which in the first year of construction will not pay working expenses, but will serve to create traffic, because they will improve the industry of the district. It may be in the interest of a great Railway Company, for example, to promote a line which will not pay, but will serve as a feeder to increase the general traffic of the line. Yet this line, which would be in reality a commercial success, would not on the principle of the hon. Member be constructed. I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to insist on the Amendment, which rather belongs to the general scheme he had framed in his mind, and which he has had to relinquish.

MR. STOREY

The right hon. Gentleman uses a peculiar argument. It is possible, he says, that a Railway Company might construct a branch line for the advantage of their general line. But I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in England the great Railway Companies construct those branch lines for themselves, and why should they not do so in Ireland also? What does the Report of the Commissioners say on this subject? It says— Few of the minor Irish, railways which are in the nature of extensions pay any dividend on their ordinary stock. Several have been bought up by the larger companies on terms unfavourable to the original proprietors, and most of those which maintain an independent existence are heavily in debt to the Government, as often in arrear as regards their interest as in the principal of their mortgage loans. Yet in face of that declaration the Government propose that the British taxpayer should give more money to those companies to make fresh lines which will not pay. In England affairs of this kind are dealt with on principles of common sense; but when we get on to Irish affairs a false kind of philanthropy is immediately imported into the consideration of the question, and all ideas of political economy are discarded. Why not fix a term of five or seven years in order to allow for the possible development of the country and the prospect of the line paying? This will meet the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, which is fair enough, that in the first years after its construction a line may not pay.

COLONEL NOLAN

The hon. Member quotes the Commissioners as if they were the four Evangelists, while every speech he makes is against the Gospel of the Commissioners which is contained in this Bill. He quotes the Report on bye issues, and when it serves his turn; but he goes against the whole spirit of the Report.

MR. STOREY

Excuse me. I can undertake to say that in every important particular the Royal Commissioners are against this Bill.

COLONEL NOLAN

The Commissioners recommended that the Government should assist the making of Irish railways, and this is the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. Besides, on the money advanced hitherto for the construction of Irish railways, there has been a substantial profit to the Treasury. If the House agrees to the Amendment they will really be making a present to Irish lawyers, because litigation will immediately ensue, and legal arguments will be directed to the point as to whether a line will pay working expenses or not.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN (Dublin, College Green)

English Railway Companies can make branch lines if they think fit, because they are prosperous concerns, while Irish Railway Companies cannot do so for the contrary reason. That is the question in a nutshell. Besides, the English taxpayer has obtained a good deal of Irish money, and it is neither fair nor just for hon. Members to argue in this manner. A large portion of the defence of this measure is to be based on this ground—that Ireland is poor, and has been kept poor by British policy and legislation, and this is but a paltry return for this country to make. I do not very greatly wonder that some English Members should be found to oppose this Bill. I greatly wonder that any Irish Members are found to oppose it. For myself I shall give it all the support in my power, come from what quarter it may. It is true it is given to us by a Government which has spent the greater part of its time in breaking our heads and sending us to prison. Nevertheless, I do not see any reason for rejecting this measure.

* MR. SPEAKER

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must confine his remarks to the Amendment.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

I will merely say, then, that I wish to oppose the Amendment.

MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid.)

I wish to point out to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee that the practical effect of this Amendment, if carried, will be to exclude from the operation of the Bill the very portions of Ireland which really most require railway communication. I consider that would be a most unfortunate result; and I trust that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has a logical mind, will not press an Amendment which will defeat the real purpose of the Bill.

* MR. CHANCE

I am afraid my hon. Friend hardly appreciates the force of the Amendment. He forgets one vital fact, and that is that the expense of working the various lines under the Bill will fall on the districts. These lines are to be constructed in the poorest districts, and the cost of working will fall upon the poorest and most wretched baronies. There is a wholly unlimited guarantee. It may be 5s., or 10s., or 20s. in the £1, and it will have to be given by the people who are supposed to be benefited. I do not myself believe that a railway which is first constructed for nothing and which then will not pay for working can be of any benefit. It seems to me to be an abuse of common sense to imagine that a railway which will not pay for its coal and oil is an advantage to any district; and if a district is so poor that it cannot afford traffic to pay for the coal and oil it ought to be guarded from the unqualified liability which will be imposed upon it in ease of a break-down.

MR. MARUM (Kilkenny, N.)

I should like to point out that the Royal Commission say in their Report they feel it their duty to recommend the State to undertake far larger responsibility in connection with these works in Ireland than would be desirable in other parts of the United Kingdom, and that unless the help of the State can be given it cannot be expected that the works they suggest can be executed.

MR. BIGGAR

It is all very well to talk about making lines in districts where there are nothing but stones and never will be any traffic. You may benefit a few beggarly shopkeepers; but I really think we ought not to be asked to tax the people for these schemes if the re- sponsible authorities do not think they will pay expenses. The people who live in these districts are very badly off, but though the people are badly off you are not going to give them crops by making railways. I am not satisfied; with the course that some Irish Members have taken as to this Bill, for they have actually said to me that unless certain provisions are inserted in the measure the ratepayers are going to be plundered, and yet, even though those provisions have not been inserted, they are supporting the Bill.

MR. A. O'CONNOR

I do not know that I should feel much more satisfied with the Lord Lieutenant's estimate of the probable paying character of a projected railway than I am as to his satisfaction at the legal acquirements of the Resident Magistrates; but I should like to ask either the Chief Secretary or the Solicitor General a very practical question. In the east of Donegal there are two lines of railway, from one or other, and perhaps from both, of which there will be extensions into the north-west or south of Donegal. The question I wish to put is this: Suppose the contemplated extension should not pay its working expenses, will there be any further expense thrown upon my constituents, or will there not?

* MR. MADDEN

Any Company holding a working agreement with a Railway Company may apply for a guarantee from the Treasury, and, of course, the Treasury will have to satisfy themselves that the line will be worked. The guarantees under the Act of 1883 will apply to the lines which may be promoted under the Act of 1883, with the Treasury assistance derived from this Bill.

MR. A. O'CONNOR

What I ask is—[cries of "Order!"]—will my constituents have to pay the working expenses?

* MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

The House divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 148.—(Div. List, No. 326.)

MR. CHANCE

I beg to move an Amendment to provide that railways under this Act shall be constructed by existing companies or promoters having working arrangements in existing companies. I very much fear transactions of this character—that people starting a company will come and say, "We cannot get an existing company to take this up for us," and will then, having got some capital advanced, obtain a guarantee and sell to an existing company, which will have the advantage both of the capital advanced and also of the guarantee. The Commissioners in their Report of last year recommended that these operations should be confined to existing companies, and that if existing companies would not make the necessary railways power should be taken to compel them on fair terms. My Amendment only gives the Lord Lieutenant power to act; it is not compulsory.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, after the word "that," to insert the words "such of the provisions of this Act as may be set out in said Order."—(Mr. Chance.)

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

* MR. MADDEN

I hope the hon. Member will not persevere with this. The Order in Council is an Order merely declaring that for certain reasons it is desirable that lines under this Act should be permitted in certain places. At that stage of the proceedings it cannot be determined whether the line shall be made by an existing Railway Company or an independent company of promoters. And it should not be determined at that stage, because once you decide that a line should be constructed between certain points the greater the competition the better. One of the main objects is to get healthy competition between adjoining railways on the one hand, and persons interested in the locality on the other. The effect of the Amendment would be to strangle competition in its birth.

MR. CHANCE

I do not say this must be done, but that the Lord Lieutenant may have power to do it. I can conceive circumstances in which it would be desirable that this power should be exercised.

MR. PHILIPPS

I do not understand the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Where you are going to make railways that are not going to pay the cost of their construction, it is rather ridiculous to have competition. It would be bad enough to have one railway that does not pay working ex- penses, and if you are to have a competing line of the same kind it will be worse than ever. If the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech does not mean that, I do not know what it does mean.

MR. BIGGAR

I do not understand the speech of the Solicitor General for Ireland, or that of the hon. Member who has just sat down. Does the Solicitor General mean that patronage should be extended to a class of promoters who intend when their line is constructed to sell it to some one else? I think we should only deal with bonâ fide parties. It would be a ridiculous thing for a company which has no means of carrying on a railway to come for power to construct one in the hope of being able to sell it to some one else. Such a thing should never be allowed. The Bill will extend patronage to a class of people with neither money nor character, but who are able to get at the right side of the Secretary to the Treasury or the Solicitor General for Ireland for the time being, and get power to make a line which they can either sell at a profit or allow to drop.

The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 147.—(Div. List, No. 327.)

Other Amendments made.

On Clause 3,

* MR. CHANCE

I have to move as an Amendment to this clause the insertion after the word "traffic" in line 21, page 1, of the words— and having for at least five years immediately preceding the passing of this Act paid a dividend of at least three per centum per annum upon all its stocks and shares. Earlier in the Debate the learned Solicitor General for Ireland told us again and again that Her Majesty's Government would take proper securities from existing Railway Companies working under the Bill that no charge should fall on the baronies. I ask is it proper to give public money to any kind of line? When you once advance the capital to some impoverished or insolvent Railway Company can you get any sort of guarantee or security that it will be properly expended? For my part I do not believe you can. In Ireland there are numbers of these small railways which cannot pay principal and interest on the original outlay, let alone dividends on ordinary stock, and it is unwise to hand over public money as a free gift to these insolvent or impoverished undertakings. It would be much wiser to give it to a new company starting with a clear book. If you advance the proposed sums to companies already up to their eyes in debt they will only try to pocket as much as they can out of it, putting on their lines all their old carriages, and worn out stock, or selling them to new companies at the price given 15 or 20 years before. I submit that, under such circumstances, you cannot expect to get anything like reasonable security. We have heard a good deal from the Government about security, and now we come to the bottom of it we find that the security referred to is to be that of Railway Companies that have not been able to pay a dividend for years I trust my Amendment will be accepted.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, after the word "traffic," to insert the words— and having for at least five years immediately preceding the passing of this Act paid a dividend of at least three per centum per annum upon all its stocks and shares."—(Mr. Chance.)

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

* MR. MADDEN

I am unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, who need not be under any fear that the guarantee of such companies as he has described will be accepted by the Treasury.

* MR. CHANCE

Exclude them, then.

* MR. MADDEN

The hon. Gentleman says "exclude them," but he seeks to exclude them unfairly. What the Bill does is to exclude insolvent companies by investing discretion in the Treasury Authorities, who will be bound to satisfy themselves that the guarantees offered by the Railway Companies are satisfactory. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persevere with his Amendment, which would prevent the acceptance of the guarantee of any Railway Company, unless it had paid a dividend of 3 per cent for five years on all its stocks and shares. It is well-known that there are companies which are very heavily weighted with preferential shares, whose guarantee would be quite satisfactory to the Treasury, and yet who would not be able to satisfy the Treasury in the terms of the Amendment that they had paid a dividend of 3 per cent for five years on their ordinary stock. I trust, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not persist in his attempt to lay down a hard and fast rule which would exclude companies able to offer good security.

MR. BIGGAR

I have sometimes asked the Secretary to the Treasury questions as to this and that local railway in the best parts of Ireland, and the answer I have universally got is that those companies are in arrear with their interest. Of course there are numbers of large companies whose security is first-rate, and who would carry out any contract they might enter into, because they could be forced to do so; but if the Treasury is going to treat with such companies as my hon. Friend describes, the guarantees they might give would not be worth the paper they were written on. Supposing these transactions are to be honest and substantial, we ought to pass some such provision as that contained in the Amendment, even if it were only to save the Secretary to the Treasury from being constantly badgered by applications from insolvent companies.

MR. HALLEY STEWART

I think the Amendment too extreme in its scope. In the Grand Committee I supported a proposition that the Railway Company giving the guarantee should at least have paid some dividend during two or three years. I do not know whether the Solicitor General is in a more conciliatory mood than when we were in Committee, but if he be, he might make it clear that the Railway Company should be to some extent solvent.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

I desire to connect the refusal of the Government to accede to this Amendment with their refusal to accept the Amendment moved by me, that the railway should pay its working expenses. The result of this double refusal is that the Bill we are about to pass into law will simply be a Bill to enable the Government to lend money to companies which cannot pay their debts in order to make railways which will not pay their working expenses.

MR. CHANCE

After the attitude taken by the Government in this matter I will ask leave to withdraw my Amend- ment, as I do not wish to put the House to the trouble of a Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BIGGAR

I wish to move an Amendment which will prevent the gauge being broken, and I hope that the Government will see their way to accept it.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, after the word "traffic," to insert the words— And undertake to make the proposed new line of the same gauge as the then existing line, and run the proposed new line in connection with it."—(Mr. Biggar.)

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

COLONEL NOLAN

I think this is a fair Amendment, and not like some of the others which have been proposed for the purpose of taking up time. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Cavan that if the new lines are short it is not worth while breaking the gauge, but if the new line is, say, 50 miles in length, it might be cheaper to have a narrow gauge than that which is generally found on Irish railways and which is somewhat broader than the usual English gauge. It would, however, be better to leave this matter in the hands of the Treasury.

MR. STOREY

It was very gracious on the part of my hon. Friend to admit that this is a fair Amendment, although he complains that some of the previous Amendments we have proposed have not been fair. We prefer, however, our own judgment upon the matter, whether or not they are fair. Now, I dispute his statement that the narrow gauge railway would cost a good deal less than a broad gauge line. Where does he get his authority for that? You sent a Royal Commission to Ireland and their Report discusses this very problem. The Commissioners said they were persuaded that in the result there was really no saving in adopting a narrow gauge line. As I understand this Amendment, however, it provides that there may be two gauges, because there are two already in Ireland, and it will be quite possible where there is a narrow gauge railway to continue that line on the same gauge. I think the advantage of not breaking the gauge is so clear that the Government can have no difficulty in accepting this Amendment.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I trust the House is not going to enter into the interminable controversy as to the merits of broad and narrow gauge lines. The Government cannot accept the Amendment. Strong reasons would be required to induce the Government to allow a change of gauge, but if it is shown that there will be a saving of cost, of construction or of working, by making the new railway on a narrower gauge, there is no reason why the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant in Council should be hampered.

The House divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 153.—(Div. List, No. 328.)

MR. STOREY

I have next to move an Amendment which will, in effect, provide that the Government shall not give or lend more public money to Irish Railway Companies which are at present in arrear, for either principal or interest in connection with previous loans. Now the record of our present transactions with the Railway Companies in Ireland is not a very satisfactory one. We find that there are at the present time arrears of principal outstanding to the amount of £200,000, and of interest to the amount of £114,000, or, in other words, that the Irish Railway Companies owe the Exchequer no less than £314,000 of money which is overdue. I ask what is the use of lending money to companies which are in this condition. Apply the principle to the case of a private person. Suppose that one of us sought to borrow money from another hon. Member of this House. If he were previously indebted to that hon. Member he would probably be told that he already owed so much for principal and interest, and that no further loan could be granted him unless he paid up the arrears. If such a principal applies to private cases, why should it not equally apply to Public Companies? Why is Ireland to be treated differently from any other country? You are, in fact, going to treat Ireland as a spoilt infant, instead of as a self-respecting man, and I prefer that Ireland should be treated as a self-respecting man. I am quite willing that we should have these dealings with the Irish Railway Companies if they are solvent and paying concerns; but if they are only sham companies which borrow money and never mean to pay it back then, I say we ought not to lend them any more. I am strengthened in that conclusion by what I see in the second part of this clause, by which you are going to make these grants to the promoters of Light Railways. Just think what you are doing. You are going to deal with promoters who may be mere nobodies. These promoters may make a bargain with the Railway Company which may absolutely be in arrears with its payments of principal and interest to the Exchequer, and the hands of the Treasury will be tied under this clause, for they will be compelled to hand this money over to the promoters, although the prospects of getting it repaid will be very slight indeed. I do trust that the Government will accept some reasonable Amendment in this matter. I do not think that we on these Benches are open to the reproach which has been levelled against us, that we are obstructing this Bill. We have adopted a proper Parliamentary plan. We have stated our objections with brevity, and as clearly as possible, and then we have divided upon them. Some of our Irish Friends have dignified that conduct with the name of obstruction. I say it is not obstruction at all; it is an ancient Parliamentary practice adopted by minorities in this House. We have none of us spoken long, and we have only asked for a reasonable answer. Now I wish to ask this: Is it fair to take the public money belonging to the taxpayers of this country and to give or lend it to Railway Companies which admittedly, at the present time, are in arrear with both principal and interest in respect of previous loans? Why cannot the Government accept such a limitation as we suggest?

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, after the word "traffic," to insert the words "and which does not owe arrears of principal or interest to the Government."—(Mr. Storey.)

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

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think that the argument of the hon. Member for Sunderland would have been a powerful one had the proposal of the Government been to increase the obligations of the Railway Companies to the Government. But that is not so. We do not propose to lend money to an already insolvent undertaking. That would be opposed to all common sense. What we propose to do is to give money for the construction of new Railways. So far, therefore, from having the effect of increasing the liabilities of over-burdened undertakings, I would suggest that the extension of lines might have the effect of making existing lines solvent, if they are not already solvent. But I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we propose to make loans to Companies which at present cannot pay their arrears of interest, it would be a foolish mercantile transaction; and I repeat that that is not our proposal.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

The right hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked Sub section 3 of Section 4, which says that the Treasury may give or lend the money. The Bill proposes to enable the Treasury to do the very thing which the right hon. Gentleman admits to be unreasonable.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The loan in such a case would not be made on the security of a bankrupt concern. It would be made simply for the construction of a new line.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

I understand the right hon. Gentleman to make the sensible admission that to lend money to a Company which already is in arrears with its payments on previous loans would be an unreasonable thing to do. I now call his attention to Sub-section 3 of Section 4, and ask him if he will be willing to make such an Amendment in that as will prevent the handing over the money on loan to a Company in arrears. If he will do that, I think my hon. Friend may withdraw his Amendment.

MR. PHILIPPS

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says that the money which would be lent to an insolvent railway would not be on the security of that railway, but on the security of a line to be added to it. Now, it seems to me, that is only making bad matters worse. If you have got 50 miles of railroad already bankrupt, and are going to lend the Company money to extend that line another 50 miles, it is obviously making bad worse. It is throwing good money after bad in an extraordinarily reckless way. I think the Government might well accept this Amendment in the interests of the taxpayers, not only of England and Scotland, but also of Ireland, the unfortunate people of which will have their rates made heavier by the extraordinary investments the Government intend to plunge into.

MR. BIGGAR

On the question of security, I should like to point out that unless the existing railway is able to pay its working expenses and its interest on borrowed money, there will be no real security for any money to be advanced for the purposes of an extension of the line, and I do hold that the Government should not encourage schemes of that sort.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

It seems to me that the argument used by the hon. Member for Lanark was that a bad business could not possibly be made better. I entirely differ from that view. I believe all business men in this country know that it is often through an extension of credit that a man is enabled to retrieve his misfortunes and pull up his business. I, therefore, hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will persevere with his opposition to this Amendment.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

I would suggest that this matter of the policy of lending or giving money to a Company already in debt might much better be raised on Sub-section 3 of Section 4.

MR. STOREY

I hope the Government will accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point at a subsequent stage of the Bill. If they will do that, I will consent to withdraw my Amendment.

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

I think the right hon. Gentleman, if he looks into the mater, will see that what he said ought to be qualified to this extent—that the loan is only to be in regard to new works.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

We now come to the really contentious part of the Bill. Hitherto we have had smooth water and plain sailing, but from this point forward I am afraid the conflict as to principle will be considerable. The House may not be aware that at the point we have reached the alteration was made which we contend entirely changed the character of the Bill, and what I propose to do in this Amendment is to strike out words which were improperly imported from Part II. and leave this portion of the Bill as it stood after the Second Reading. The Amendment, as I have put it on the Paper, is, perhaps, too wide; therefore, I propose to omit the words from "or (b)" down to "Company." The scheme of Light Railway construction sanctioned by the Second Reading was first that existing Railway Companies should have assistance given to them by way of free grant, or loan, or annual payment, subject to such security as is afforded by the scheme of the old Act. That was Part I. of the Bill. The second part of the scheme—in Part II. of the Bill—dealt with all other persons promoting these Light Railways. They were not to receive grants or loans or annual payments, but guarantees. There were two elaborate securities, one of which was in tended to protect the localities through which the railways ran, and the other of which was intended to protect the Treasury. By a soft and silent side-wind this important Amendment was introdnced in Committee, whereby non-descript proprietors were introduced to benefits in Part I. without any of the securities which were originally imposed in their regard in Part II. It was thought that Irish Railway Companies having railways open for traffic at all events had a stake in the country and were Corporations with which the Treasury could deal. It was thought that they could be trusted to carry out the powers of the Bill, but, of course, no one could say the same thing with regard to promoters other than Railway Companies. Promoters other than Railway Companies were in no way defined in the existing Bill, and they are in no way defined in this Bill except under a phrase subsequently introduced on my own Motion in Committee which required them to be members of public Companies. Except that they are persons who have made an agreement with a Railway Company, or who have made an application that a Grand Jury should guarantee a dividend on the paid-up capital of a Light Railway, the promoters themselves are not defined. They may be anybody. We have had by anticipation a graphic description from the hon. Member for Cavan—who knows the whole question as well as anyone in this House—of the character, credit, and responsibility of these promoters. No one can pronounce an opinion on that matter who does not know Ireland well. I do not know it well, but the hon. Member for Cavan does, and he has given us his view of the matter. The object of my Amendment is to remove from Part I. of the Bill these nondescript promoters, who ought to be dealt with in Part II. The immediate question raised is whether these promoters, who make contracts with existing Railway Companies, should be admitted to benefits originally intended by the Bill for such companies only. The security afforded by a contract with an existing Railway Company would be inferior to that afforded by a Railway Company itself. The Government would be more safe dealing with companies having railways open for traffic than they would be dealing with promoters who merely say that they will get companies to work their lines if they have facilities for making them. I ask the Government whether it is wise to allow this clause to stand as at present framed. I propose to restore the Bill to the condition in which it passed the Second Reading, and I appeal to the deliberate opinion of the House, as pronounced on the occasion of the Second Reading, to support me.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, to leave out after the word "traffic," to the end of Clause 3.—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)

Question proposed, That the words 'or (b) where the promoters have made an agreement approved of by the Treasury for the maintenance, management, and working of the Light Railway by such a Railway Company' stand part of the Bill.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Member seems to think that the alternative is as between the Bill as it now stands and as it was originally introduced, but as a matter of fact it is as between the Bill as originally introduced and as it has been amended by the hon. Member for Cavan. If the hon. Member were to cut out that part of the Bill we are now considering the effect would be to render it of no value whatever to the distressed parts of Ireland. The hon. Member talks as if the only qualification is to be that the promoters have made some offer to a Company or some application to a Grand Jury. He forgets that the promoters have, in the first place, to run the gauntlet of the Grand Jury before whom anybody can be heard against them, and that in the next place they have to run the gauntlet of the Privy Council, which has shown itself most critical in examining their claims. Then an examination of increased stringency has to be made by the Irish Board of Works, and, finally, the Treasury has to approve of the scheme. Under the circumstances, I do not think the hon. Member need be in the least alarmed that bogus promoters will have the working of these lines in their hands. I trust the House will not allow itself to be alarmed into accepting an Amendment which would destroy what we believe to be one of the most valuable provisions of the Bill.

MR. BIGGAR

I think that instead of especially encouraging this clause of the Bill we should especially discourage it. It originally only applied to promoters under contract with Railway Companies, the idea being that Railway Companies possessing rolling stock would form a good security. May I point out it will be possible for the promoter under the present arrangement to disappear when he has got the money and there will then be nothing for the Government to fall back upon? I venture to warn the Government that unless they adopt some such safeguards their scheme will bring them nothing but disgrace.

MR. STOREY

I should like to point out that now the promoters will not have to go to the Grand Jury at all. They will be in a position to make an agreement with an existing Railway Company, and the result will be this: "A" goes to the Government and gets a capital sum for the making of a railway. He tells the Government before he gets it that he has agreed with the Railway Company to maintain and work the line. It is evident that the Railway Company do not agree to maintain and work the line without getting something for it, and you may be sure the consideration handed over to the company will be included in the sum obtained from the Government, together with all the promotion money, and the costs and charges in connection with the formation of the company. "A" thereupon sets to work to make the line. There is no sufficient security that he will make the line properly, either as to ballasting, weight of the rails, the class of the rolling stock, or the permanence of the buildings. We have no sufficient guarantee in the Bill that these matters will be properly attended to. He makes the line, there is a sort of examination by a Board of Trade official, and "A" then gets the money, and is done with the whole transaction, for he has bargained with the Railway Company to work and maintain the line henceforth, and he walks out of the business altogether. Is it not apparent to the right hon. Gentleman that in such a transaction you may get a promoter whose one business it would be to make the capital sum as large as possible and to carry the works out in as cheap and inefficient a manner as possible, so as to get as much as he can out of the transaction for himself? Ought not the Government to take steps to prevent such a case arising? We say that it will be possible under the Government scheme for promoters to act in this way, and therefore we are offering strenuous opposition to the Bill; and I believe that if this Bill had been before the Grand Committee in June instead of in August, and if we had had adequate opportunities for discussion, these dangers would have been amply safeguarded against.

The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 32.—(Div. List, No. 329.)

MR. COSSHAM

I now beg to move the adjournment of the Debate, and I hope the Government will agree to that Motion. We have been engaged on this Bill for eight hours, we have given every attention to it and have done our utmost to facilitate its progress. I hope the Government will now agree to an adjournment.

* MR. SPEAKER

I consider it my duty not to put that Motion. The House has, by resolution, expressly exempted the Bill from the Twelve o'clock rule, and in the face of that Resolution it would be unreasonable to put a Motion for adjournment at a few minutes after twelve.

MR. CHANCE

The Amendment I have to propose has relation to the tolls, rates, and charges, to be levied by the proposed Companies. Of course I admit that I have got some distance in the direction I desire to go, by the adoption of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act Clauses. But under that Act there is only power to fix the scale of maximum charges, not of the working charges, and, of course, there are the arrangements against undue preference and in favour of equitable running powers which that Act secures. But the powers, of the Act do not give the Railway Commissioners power to carry out the spirit of this Bill and to see that rates are settled for the encouragement of the special industry on behalf of which the railway is promoted. Suppose the Government give £100,000 for the development of a fishing industry by the construction of a line, it is only reasonable that the Government should be satisfied that the rates and tolls for the conveyance of fish should be such as to encourage the fishing industry of the district; that, in fact, fish should be conveyed at an exceptionally low rate. As yet there is no provision in the Bill that the Treasury shall have this control, and therefore I move my Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, after the word "Company" to insert the words— And for the tolls, rates, and terminal charges to be levied by such Railway Company in respect of such Light Railway."—(Mr. Chance.)

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

The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 144.—(Div. List, No. 330.)

MR. E. ROBERTSON

I have now to move the omission of the words after the word "company" to the end of the sub-section.

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

On a point of order may I ask whether the form in which the Amendment is put will allow of additions being made to the end of the sub-section?

* MR. SPEAKER

Yes; certainly.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

The form of this sub-section was discussed upstairs, and though I thought the expression, was unusual, I was assured it was usual and sufficient. But the substance of my Amendment is to prevent the bringing into this Act promoters who have no qualification other than that they have gone before the Grand Jury and proposed that the Grand Jury shall give a guarantee. I believe the form of the sub-section is taken from the old Bill, with this difference—that in the present case all that the promoter has to do is to apply for a guarantee for a portion of the paid-up capital of his concern. I do not know how the paid-up capital is to be advanced.

Another Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, to leave out from the word "Company" to the end of Clause 3.—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)

Question proposed— That the words 'or (c) where the promoters in making application to the Grand Jury of any county under the Tramways (Ireland) Acts propose that a' stand part of the Bill.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous if I say that my answer to his previous Amendment has equal force as opposed to this.

MR. PHILIPPS

It appears to me this is a most reasonable Amendment, and I think that the Government might make us some statement as to whether they are willing to accept any Amendment.

COLONEL NOLAN

I think that is an excellent suggestion. Let the Opposition say what Amendments they mean to press; let the Government say if they are prepared to accept any of them, and this arrangement may prevent us sitting here to 3 or 4 o'clock.

MR. BIGGAR

It seems to me that the Government should have something more to say as a reason for rejecting this Amendment, because B and C are wholly different sub-sections. So far as the words of this section go, and unless they carry some meaning that does not appear on the surface, any half-dozen men can go before a Grand Jury and apply for a guarantee under the provisions of some scheme, it may be of a very visionary nature, and subsequently go to the Government with the guarantee and claim Government assistance for their scheme. It seems to me to be a very uncertain sort of business, and that some better warrant of the bona fides of the parties should be given than this Bill provides.

MR. HALLEY STEWART

I feel we are engaged in a hopeless task in endeavouring to persuade the Government to forego this part of the Bill; but I cannot imagine that there was ever a clause presented to the House which more completely violated every sound principle of finance, and I am sure that the effect will be to give every encouragement to bogus companies.

* MR. CHANCE

I want to point out that this part of the clause, in plain common sense, really does require some modification. The soundest course would be to omit it altogether. When the Bill originally came before us all the new companies were to get was a guarantee of an annual sum, and that guarantee was made strictly conditional on their doing the work of constructing a line and working it. If, as under the old Act, a line ceased to be worked, the companies were to lose the benefit of the annual sum otherwise paid. Furthermore, a number of checks were provided. Now, however, as well as a capital sum, the companies are to get a guarantee without checks. There is nothing to prevent promoters getting a guarantee of, say, £10,000 from a Barony and a grant of £100,000 from the Treasury. This would show that the proposed line in the opinion of the Barony is worth something. The line may really be worth no more than £50,000, and the moment it is established the promoters may sell it for £50,000, which, deducting the amount they may have subscribed, may leave them a profit of £40,000. I challenge the Solicitor General for Ireland to say whether that is true or not. Another objection is this: Suppose the Treasury has put down £100,000 as a capital sum, and suppose the Barony has given a guarantee on £10,000 of capital, they will have a concern costing £110,000. If the concern becomes fruitful the people who have subscribed only £10,000 out of the £110,000 will get the whole of the earnings. They will have to repay to the barony only the 5 per cent dividend they have received, which will be rapidly cleared off. I submit that this is not a proper state of affairs, and that there ought to be a provision in the Bill to require the promoters to pay back the money advanced to them. Is there anything in the Bill to enable the Treasury to get back a penny of the money advanced to them? Is there anything to prevent the promoters selling a line the day after it is constructed? Is there anything to prevent them putting in their pockets the whole of the earnings of a line? If there is not there ought to be. The Government assume that the promoters will act fairly and honourably, but while no doubt the majority of promoters will be honourable men, some may not be. You may see London financial agents going over to Ireland like swarms of locusts, and getting guarantees right and left for what they can make out of them.

* MR. MADDEN

The two things the public want are the construction of these lines and their maintenance. We provide for the construction, and it will be absolutely impossible for a line to be constructed unless the Treasury are satisfied that there is sufficient guarantee for its maintenance.

The House divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 26.—(Div. List, No. 331.)

MR. BIGGAR

I would point out that the clause as it stands would apply to cases in which the promoters of a railway propose "that a barony or baronies in a county should guarantee the payment of dividends." I move, as an Amendment, to strike out the words "barony or baronies," and to insert in their stead— District, said district in no case to extend beyond four miles from a station on said proposed new line.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, to leave out the words "barony or baronies," and insert the words— District, said district in no case to extend beyond four miles from a station on said proposed new line."—(Mr. Biggar.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'barony or baronies' stand part of the Bill."

* MR. MADDEN

Under Part II. of the original Bill there was a provision under which the district benefited would have been marked out, the cost being levied on that district. When the change was made in the Bill the proceedings come under the Act of 1883. This Amendment would be inconsistent with the Act of 1883, and contrary to the decision we have already come to.

The House divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 24.—(Div. List, No. 332.)

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 29, at end of Clause 3, to insert the words— Provided always, that no guarantee under this section shall exceed the amount of a rate of sixpence in the pound upon the net annual value for the time being of the several hereditaments and tenements within the benefited district in the county."—(Mr. Handel Cossham.)

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

MR. BIGGAR

I will now move the next Amendment which stands in my mame. I do not see why the guarantees should continue if the promoters are not able to carry out their contract, and I hope the Government will see the advisability of accepting this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 29, at end of Clause 3, to insert the words— Provided always, that all guarantees of whatever kind shall cease and determine as soon as any guaranteed line ceases to be worked for traffic."—(Mr. Biggar.)

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

* MR. MADDEN

There are no guarantees provided for here. All that is provided for is the advance of money by way of gift or loan, but there are no guarantees under this Bill. The House has been more than once reminded that the Treasury will exercise their discretion in seeing that there is sufficient security for the carrying out of the working arrangements.

MR. STOREY

The hon. and learned Gentleman is surely wrong in saying there is no guarantee. There is a distinct guarantee from the Treasury, which has to pay one-half. Is not that so?

* MR. MADDEN

Yes, under the Act of 1883.

MR. STOREY

Very well, then; that is a Treasury guarantee to all intents and purposes. This being so, can anything be more reasonable than that, if a line prove to be a failure and cease to work, the guarantee shall also cease? The Royal Commissioners recommended that any assistance to be given under the Act should be under some provision for its ultimate discontinuance, and this Amendment is only carrying out that recommendation. If the Government are disposed to accept any Amendment that is at all reasonable, they ought, although we are in a minority and cannot enforce it, to accept this.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The Government cannot accept an Amendment which, if it were inserted, would render the scheme financially unworkable. The money could not then be borrowed on reasonable terms.

* MR. CHANCE

Under this Bill the Treasury bargain to pay an annual sum, and although, technically, that is not a guarantee, it is so practically. We ask that this annual sum shall not be paid if the line ceases working. Supposing the line is abandoned and disappears, is it reasonable that the payment should continue?

The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 134.—(Div. List, No. 333.)

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 29, at end of Clause 3, to insert the words— Or where the promoters show that such a guarantee in respect of a portion of their capital has already been given by a barony or baronies by virtue of any Parliamentary authority."—(Mr. Kimber.)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, after the word "respects," to insert the words— (Including terms and conditions as to rates, tolls, terminal charges, and train services, as having special regard to the interests of the industries requiring to be developed and the circumstances of the district.)"—(Mr. Chance.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

* MR. CHANCE

The next Amendment I desire to press is one to strike out from Clause 5 the word "promotion," and substitute therefor the word "construction." I do not know whether there is any special charm in the word "promotion," but it seems to me strange that it should be used in connection with the Privy Council when the word "construction" will serve the same purpose.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 31, to leave out the word "promotion," and insert the word "construction."—(Mr. Chance.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'promotion' stand part of the Bill."

* MR. MADDEN

On technical grounds I think the word "promotion" should be retained, as it is necessary to give the Railway Companies statutory powers to promote.

MR. CHANCE

Very well. It is a mere technicality, and I will therefore withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, after the word "made," to insert the words— (a.) The first regulation contained in Schedule (A) to the said Act, Part I., shall be read and construed as if after the words 'purchase of lands' there were added the words and figure following, that is to say:— (5.) The several parishes, townlands, and baronies in every county constituting the district proposed as the benefited district and the nature of the guarantee which is to be applied for from such district."—(Mr. Chance.)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill read the third time, and passed.