§ MR. A. J. BALFOURSir, I now beg to move for leave to introduce the fifth of the measures which I have placed upon the Paper, embodying the scheme of the Government for improving the industrial resources of Ireland. It will be in the recollection and knowledge of the House that in 1883 an Act, which was known as the Tramways (Ireland) Act, was passed by the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), and, I think, under the auspices of the right hon. Member for Bridgeton (Sir G.Trevelyan). It is upon the basis of that Act, though largely differing from it in some of its main provisions, that the chief part of the scheme I have the honour to introduce is ultimately founded. Under that Act a capital sum corresponding to an annual outlay of £40,000 was authorized to be expended upon the construction of tramways and light railways. I suppose that such an annual outlay would represent a capital sum of about £1,333,000. Under the Act of 1883 seven railways have actually been completed and are in operation at an expenditure corresponding to an annual outlay of £10,290. Seven more railways have practically gone through all their preliminary stages, and the Treasury are pledged to provide money for them. There will then be left a capital sum still to be disposed of under the old Tramways Act corresponding to an annual outlay of £18,000. Therefore, rather more than half the money provided by the Act of 1883 has already been expended. Now, Sir, the Act of 1883 has been fruitful in good results and may yet be fruitful in further good results, but experience has shown that in many respects it is defective, and that there are in it many provisions which may with advantage be amended. The Government are of opinion that, besides amending the Act of 1883, we ought to bring in at the same time some plan, framed in some respects on essentially different lines, for dealing with the poorer and more congested districts of Ireland. The scheme of the Government divides itself naturally into two parts, the first being Amendments in matters of detail of the Act of 1883, and the other being the new scheme that the Government desire to bring into 1738 operation for extending railways through the congested districts in the West of Ireland. I propose to deal with these two parts in the order in which I have named them. The first matter of detail in which, I think, the provisions of the Act of 1883 ought to be altered relates to the time at which the Treasury guarantee is repaid to the Local Authority. Under the Act of 1883, when the locality has paid its guarantee of, say, 5 per cent to the promoters, it is allowed to come to the Treasury and ask for repayment of a portion of that sum, which I may roughly put at 2 per cent. In the first half-year the Treasury has got half a year behind in the payment of that 2 per cent, and has remained so. I do not see any reason why that should be continued. The Treasury, I think it was in 1884, expressed its perfect willingness to get over the difficulty, and they were only prevented from doing so because the terms of the statute of 1883 would have rendered it illegal. We propose now to put that right. The second point is, in some respects, of more importance. Under the old Act it is possible, I believe, to have no less than three or four persons, who are sometimes called auditors and sometimes arbitrators, charged with the investigation of the accounts. All those practically acquainted with the working of the Act are of opinion that this arrangement led to unnecessary expense and difficulty, and I therefore propose to substitute for the auditors and arbitrators a single auditor who will be appointed by the Board of Trade. The third Amendment I propose to make in the Act of 1883 is to confer somewhat greater elasticity upon the definition of the word "capital," as used in that Act. I believe it is not in the power of the Privy Council to allow capital to be used for the purpose of paying interest during the construction of a tramway. I think that is an unduly rigid application of the word "capital," which does not really lead to economy in the construction of the line, and which renders it more difficult to obtain promoters and companies which will successfully carry out the undertaking. The fourth matter of detail on which I propose to amend the Act relates to the Standing Orders, if I may so describe them, which were laid down by the Act of 1860, which wa 1739 the original Act dealing with tramways in Ireland. Under the provisions of that Act, as modified by the Act of 1883, all undertakings in regard to tramways in Ireland have to be carried into effect. There is no discretion left to the bodies before whom those schemes are discussed to alter any matters of detail. We propose to give power to amend any errors that may be committed, and to give to the bodies before whom the schemes are discussed power to suspend the Standing Rules. We further propose to grant powers to raise new capital under substantially the same guarantees as were placed by statute on the raising of the original capital. It sometimes happens that the original capital proves insufficient for the undertaking, and that additional capital becomes necessary. I do not think it ought to be made too easy to raise fresh capital; otherwise we shall lend ourselves to extravagant administration, but, under the guarantee the Government propose to impose, I do not think any danger will be incurred. The sixth main alteration we suggest is that facilities should be given to promote working arrangements between one tramway company and another, between tramway and light railway and between light railway and other railway companies. There are no powers under existing Acts of Parliament for carrying out such arrangements, and that state of facts results in great inconvenience. We also proposed that all tramways under the Act of 1883 should be placed for certain purposes under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. Now. Sir, I have enumerated the main points in which we think we may amend the details of the Act of 1883. There is one question connected with both the first part and the second part of the Bill upon which the House will expect me to say a few words—namely, the much-vexed question of the comparative merits of the broad and the narrow gauge. Not only theorists but practical men have differed on this point. I believe promoters of tramways and light railways were not allowed under Lord Spencer's Government to have the narrow gauge. The Commission appointed in 1887 reported strongly in favour of the broad gauge. Undoubtedly strong arguments have been urged in favour of the broad gauge. The advocates of the 1740 broad gauge say perfectly truly that it affords the necessity of transshipment at the point of junction between the narrow and the broad gauge, with the consequent reduction of cost and inconvenience, and also the avoidance of risk of damage to the more perishable kinds of goods. It is also said that the broad gauge is far more convenient because it is necessary to keep on a light railway as large a quantity of rolling stock as will meet every possible emergency, it being impossible to supplement the stock from any other source; and, further, it is alleged that the broad gauge is not really much more expensive. Oil the other hand, I have received strong representations on the other side from persons who are practically acquainted with the actual working of some of the lines already constructed. They say that the cost of transshipment does not amount to more than 3d. per ton, and sometimes to only 2½d., and that it is an illusion to suppose that fresh fish are materially injured by such transshipment. They add that transshipment must occur between the light railway and the main trunk line even if both are on the same gauge, and they deny the allegation that the narrow gauges are not much cheaper. Upon these and various other auguments they put in a strong plea why the Government should insert in the Bill some provision in contradiction to the recommendations of the Royal Commission and in favour of the narrow gauge. The Government have, perhaps, taken a somewhat cowardly course in this matter. Feeling the arguments differ so widely, they have left it open in the Bill as to what kind of gauge should be adopted. Next I come to the important provisions which deal with the suggestions as to promoting railways in the poorer parts of Ireland. Under the Act of 1883, the Treasury never came into direct contact with the promoters, nor are they responsible to them. Though the Treasury give a guarantee, it is not a direct guarantee to the promoters, but a guarantee behind the barony guarantee and dependent on it. I did not think he should be justified in asking the Treasury to relax that principle with regard to the northern parts of Ireland, but I think I may ask the Treasury to relax it when dealing with the poorer and congested districts, because the result of that prin- 1741 ciple is that the locality has to pay much more in order that the necessary capital may be raised than it would if the Treasury gathered directly. Broadly speaking, the credit of the localities in Ireland does not enable them to go into the money market and get better terms than 5 per cent, even though the Treasury guarantee is behind them. In the present Bill the Government propose, in dealing with the congested districts, to make the guarantee direct, and therefore enable the money to be raised practically at 3 per cent. A proposal which brings the Treasury directly into contact with the promoters of the line no doubt requires justification, and I find that justification really and solely in the poverty of the districts with which we have to deal. The population over a large part of the West of Ireland, as the House well knows, is crowded along the seashore, where they can obtain seaweed for manure; they till land of poor quality, often much over-crowded, and always remote from means of communication. I believe that if Parliament could give them the advantage of these railways, we should not only increase the actual value of their holdings by bringing their agricultural produce into some proximity with the market, but we should do a great deal to foster that industry whose prosperity is so near the heart of every man interested in the welfare of Ireland—the fishing industry. I have lately been told that a 31b. haddock caught off the coast of Donegal actually sells for a halfpenny, simply because the district is 20 or 30 miles from a railway. That, then, is my justification for the proposal with regard to the Treasury. I have even larger hopes, because I cannot help thinking that if by means of this plan we can bring these people into closer contact with the outer world and raise the standard of being amongst them, we shall by natural means promote that emigration from local districts which I am certain every impartial observer, whatever his views, cannot but regard in his heart as the greatest blessing. With regard to financial machinery, the Royal Commission reported strongly in favour of encouraging in every way the existing railways to be promoters, and the Government strongly concur in that recommendation; and we go a good 1742 deal further in some respects. We should desire, without going to the locality for anything, that the Treasury should be able to induce existing railway companies to construct, to maintain, and to work lines through these congested districts, and, in order to effect that object, we propose that the Treasury should have power to negotiate with the railway companies for this purpose, giving the Treasury the very widest latitude with regard to the terms which they may offer. They may give to the railway companies the whole or any part of the money which may be thought necessary in order to induce them to carry out this object. Of course in any contract of that kind it will be absolutely necessary for the railway company on their side to engage to maintain and work the line. Be it observed that the lines through the districts in question are not likely to be lucrative. Where they are likely to be remunerative assistance is not wanted but where they are not remunerative, and where they may not even for some years pay working expenses, it is specially necessary for the Treasury to come forward with the money [An hon. MEMBER: As a gift?] As a gift. But it is perfectly possible the railway company may prove unreasonable, and that the Treasury may not be able to come to terms with them. We, therefore, propose to have two strings to our bow. We propose to retain the power of granting to promoters other than railway companies the amount of money which they require to construct a line. If that is done, the line, of course, will be constructed on cash principles, and those who construct it will get 3 per cent certain. But what is to happen under these circumstances if the working expenses of the line exceed the receipts? If the railway company construct the line that point will not arise. But in the other case it is absolutely necessary to have a baronial, or rather a local, guarantee. In it 1883, the local guarantee was used for two purposes. It was used to pay the interest promised to the promoters of the line; and it was also used to supplement any deficiency that might arise in the working expenses of the line. The Government do not propose to ask these poor localities to pay anything in respect of the first of these 1743 [...]bjects, the baronial guarantee in other words, will not go to pay any part of the cost of the original construction of the line, but we do propose to ask for the baronial guarantee up to a certain fixed amount, which shall in no case exceed 6d. in the pound, in order to enable them to meet any deficiency on the working expenses of the line. I stated just now that, although the guarantee under our scheme was a local one, it was not a baronial. Under the Act of 1883, the taxation for the purpose of constructing the line cannot be spread over a smaller area than a barony, and the result has been, and very likely will be in the future, that parts of the barony are taxed that benefit either not at all, or in an insignificant measure. We do not think that a good plan; and we propose, therefore, with regard to these railways constructed in congested districts, to tax for the limited purpose I have described only the area which is benefited by the railway. It is further proposed that the amount of the tax shall be limited to a sum to be fixed beforehand, and that it shall not in any single instance exceed 6d. We further propose the, before the locality is asked even to accept this limited liability for this limited purpose, the popular opinion of the ratepayers shall be taken and they shall have the right, if they please, to reject the scheme. Of course it is impossible to ask the Treasury to give money on these terms without limiting the amount so given. We propose, therefore, that the capital which may he used under this Act shall be a capital sum representing £20,000 a year, and in no case is it to exceed £600,000.
§ * MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. and gallant Gentleman says it is not enough. When it is expended Parliament may if it thinks fit give more. The sum of £600,000 in addition to the amount given under the Act of 1883 is not an ungenerous gift, and the terms under which it is given are certainly not niggardly. Of course, vnder a plan which provides that the Government is practically to supply the whole cost of construction of the line, it is necessary to give the Government powers to determine between what points and through what country the line is to be constructed. 1744 Under the Act of 1883, there is no power to select between the different schemes advanced in different parts of the country; but in this case we have retained the right to decide which scheme is to be taken first. I do not know that I need go more into the details at this stage of the Bill. I may say, however, that the congested districts will have to be scheduled, and this work will probably be done by the Local Government Board. Under the five schemes which the Government have thus brought forward with regard to public works, the sum of £385,000 is given to drainage, and £600,000 to railways in congested districts. The total sum given as a free gift, wholly irrespective of loan, is practically a million sterling. I think it would be admitted that the Government have approached this problem in no narrow or niggardly spirit. I venture to hope, in spite of the criticisms which have been poured upon me from below the Gangway opposite this evening, that it will also be felt that we have taken some pains to secure that the money which we are asking the Treasury to give with no stinted hand, shall be expended in a manner profitable to the community for whose benefit we intend it. After the reception which the Drainage Bills have met—a reception which, except in one case, I have no reason to complain of—I hope I may appeal to the House not to approach the Railway Bill in any Party spirit. We live in an embittered atmosphere of controversy with regard to the Irish question. I suppose that is inevitable, and being inevitable it will, and must, extend itself, to a certain extent, to any proposal which this or any Government may make with regard to public works in Ireland. But one statement has been advanced upon which I should like to make an observation. We have been told that the Government desire by these measures to buy support. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear.] That may be the view of the hon. Member for Cavan and the other hon. Gentleman who cheered —the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell)—but I, on behalf of my colleagues, beg absolutely to repudiate the suggestion. If it had been the intention of the Government to buy support by measures of this kind, we could not have made a more idiotic proposal. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear.] The hon. 1745 Member for Cavan is perfectly right. I listened with great interest to his speech. He told us that probably when these works were completed, the amount of gratitude the Government would receive for them would be comparatively small. I believe it will; and this million sterling is not intended by the Government as a means of purchasing gratitude. What we hope for is that we will be able to do something to solve the most difficult part of the Irish question. Some parts of the Irish question hon. Gentlemen opposite think they can solve by changing the method of Government in Ireland. I will not argue that point. But do not let any man in his senses attempt to tell me that a modification of the machinery by which Ireland is governed is going to help solve the question of the congested districts in Ireland. After the reception which the less popular scheme dealing with drainage has met with from hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am not without hope that they may do the Government the justice to believe that in bringing these schemes forward, and in asking the taxpayers to make a sacrifice, which I admit to be a large one in amount and one of a very novel kind, they are animated by as sincere a desire for the welfare of Ireland as hon. Gentlemen are who profess specially to have the interests of that country committed to their keeping.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the construction of Light Railways in Ireland." —(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
§ * SIR G. TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)I certainly am quite as much adverse to attempting to make any Party capital out of this question as I am to making a speech on the First Reading of a Bill. The Secretary for Ireland has in no way exceeded his rights on this occasion, and I am sure that every one who has listened to the right hon. Gentleman will agree that he has given a clear exposition of the matter before us. I wish, however, to ask one or two questions. I gathered that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make a guarantee of 2 per cent for the whole of Ireland.
§ * MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not propose to touch the relations between the locality and the promoters as they 1746 exist under the Act of 1883 with regard to Ireland generally, but entirely to modify them with regard to the congested districts.
§ * SIR G. TREVELYANI thought the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make a 2 per cent guarantee. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR signified dissent.] Then I was mistaken. With regard to the Amendments of the Act, which I took some share in passing in 1883, I may say that they are all extremely carefully considered and extremely practical. It appears to me that we are giving the money, for this is a gift. It is not like the guarantee of the Indian railways, for although the money might be in some cases a gift, yet in no case did it profess to he a gift, because the State looks forward to the time when even the Madras railways may pay. But if the State is to give money, I would very much rather give it in the shape of rail ways than in the shape of drainage. Considering the certainty that this £600,000 will be used for the benefit of the country, the more than uncertainty that the £383,000 will be used for the benefit of Ireland, and the still greater Uncertainty that this will be the last public money to be sunk in the drainage of the Suck and the other Irish rivers, I must say that the hopes I entertain from this Bill will render me much more unwilling to accept the Drainage Bills until something more is known about their past and their future than is known at present. I hope the House will agree to this Bill. If it does so, however, it will have to find some arguments to distinguish between the West of Ireland and the West of Scotland, and those arguments will not be easily found, and I am glad of it. What interests me about the measure so much is that it is a carefully drawn Bill, and the sum is a limited one. I hope the money will be doled out in such a manner that we shall be able to discover what amount of money is required to give this great advantage to a district like the West of Ireland. If the West of Ireland can be provided with these light railways for anything like £600,000, then I think we should be induced to apply the same remedy to districts which are almost in every respect— economically, socially, and in some serious aspects politically—in the same position as the West of 1747 Ireland. I think that the Crofter Members would do well to watch the debates with very great care, and to watch with still greater care in order to see what practical advantage the West of Ireland gets from a scheme which, I believe, is one of the very best that has been brought forward for its benefit.
COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)This Bill is not unlike the Bill which I had the honour to introduce some time ago—the Light Tramways Bill. I trust, however, that it will meet with a better fate, seeing that my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan was most effectual in blocking the Bill which I brought in. The chief point in this Bill is the direct nature of the guarantee; the weak point of the old Bill was the indirect nature of the guarantee. The Government guaranteed 2 per cent and surrounded it with all sorts of contingencies. I think the Chief Secretary will only be half doing his work if he does not extend the direct guarantee to the other districts of Ireland—not only to the congested districts, but to the other portions of the scheduled districts in the West of Ireland, so that money may be raised upon a much lower rate of interest. So far as the general result goes, I think it is an extremely good scheme for those districts which will be lucky enough to get the advantage of it. I do not represent Connemara, but I gather from the remarks of the Chief Secretary that the Bill will apply specially to the districts that lead to the sea coast. The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether he is going to endorse the whole of the engineer's scheme or simply to adopt the narrow-gauge plan, which, although it involves a break of gauge, will certainly enable the money to go much further. It is quite clear that if we are going to have a railway from Galway to Clifton, one in Kerry, another in Donegal, and another in Mayo, the money will not go round. On the whole, I think the guarantee is a fair one, and it provides that no district shall pay more than 6d. in the pound. I believe, myself, that these railways will pay the working expenses and recoup the Government for the money they propose to advance, if they are made economically. The Chief Secretary's sketch of the Bill is satisfactory, but I do not think that it ought to be discussed upon the question 1748 of gratitude. When it is remembered that Ireland pays £8,000,000 a year in taxation, and only gets back £1,000,000 in the course of five or six years, there is no necessity to talk of gratitude. Large sums of money, measured by tens. and hundreds of millions, are spent at Woolwich and Portsmouth, and there is nothing on a corresponding scale to be found in connection with Ireland. This. Bill simply gives back to Ireland a little of her own money, and very little too.
§ * SIR J. M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)I hope that the right hon. Gentleman if he accepts the railway companies as promoters of the new undertaking, will not hold out to them that they are to get a guarantee from the baronies for the working expenses.
§ * MR. A. J. BALFOURI expressly excluded that.
§ * SIR J. M'KENNAI give the right hon. Gentleman the greatest credit for his scheme, and I believe that the proper persons to guarantee the construction of these railways are the existing companies with whose lines the railways now proposed will be brought into connection, and who will be benefited by the traffic. It would be a great mistake to suppose that the profit on railway extensions is confined to earnings on the new mileage. The chief profit is derived from increased traffic on the old lines. There is another point which I wish to remark upon, namely, that in regard to a Government grant of this kind, I think it should not be spoken of as a gift; it is nothing of the kind. The Irish people are entitled to just and generous treatment in return for the disproportionate amount of taxes they have had to pay, as I shall very briefly point out. In the first 50 years after the Union, Ireland contributed £200,000,000 to the Imperial Revenue, that is to say, at the rate of £4,000,000 a year. There they came what I designate a period of transition—five years during which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian made a new departure, placing fresh burdens on Ireland. In the following 25 years (1856 80, both inclusive), she contributed: £7,000,000 a year in fact three millions a year more than. she had to pay under the obligations imposed upon her by the infamous Act of Union. I am nut, however, denouncing the Union at present; I use 1749 the phrase rhetorically to point out how much worse we have been dealt with since 1853 than for the first 50 years of the Union, no matter how bad it was. Ireland paid £60,000,000 more than her legitimate share in the 25 years, and the injustice continues. The result is that if you measure all the taxation of Ireland, the annual Imperial taxation of that country will be found to be at the rate of 5s. 4d. in the pound on the whole incomes of Ireland, whereas the entire Imperial taxation of England would not equal an income tax of 2s. 6d. in the pound on the total of English incomes Having said this, however, I must add, I wish the Government every success in their new scheme.
§ SIR G. CAMPBELLAs I ventured to cheer a remark of the right hon. Gentleman I desire to explain why I did so. I have not the same objection to the Bill before the House as I had to the Drainage Bills. I have an objection to give money to improve one of the richest districts of Ireland as we are told the Valley of the Bann is, but where you are dealing with congested districts I do not see the same objection, and therefore I do not intend to oppose the introduction of the present Bill. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division is right in his idea that there is to be nothing in the nature of a guarantee such as has been given in the case of the Indian Railways. To relieve the congested districts of Scotland or Ireland at the public expense is quite a different thing from benefiting one of the richest districts in Ireland at the public expense.
§ MR. BIGGARIn my view the Government are merely introducing the Bill to distract attention from the state of things in Ireland, and to provoke Irish discussions of a different kind from those to which we have been accustomed. Under these circumstances the House would do well to scrutinize the projects of the Government narrowly. The Chief Secretary has made the peculiar admission that by the Act of 1883 great injustice was done to a considerable proportion of the ratepayers, and if this is so, ought any extension of the system which came in under that Act to be granted? I believe that not more than one or two of the schemes in operation 1750 pay their working expenses. We have heard a good deal in regard to the Irish fisheries. There is a fishing town which for a long time has had direct communication with Galway, but nevertheless it is far from prosperous, in spite of the good railway communication which it possesses, and it cannot be worked profitably. The fishing population are exceedingly badly off, and the Government refuse to put a stop to trawling. There is a railway from the town of Ennis to Miltown Malbay, and yet in the course of from six to twelve months only three tons of fish have been carried over it. Experience has proved that the new light railways are really of no service in the carrying of fish; the only real occupation for them is found in what is done on fair and market days. I hope the Government will allow nothing but the broad gauge lines to be built. The fallacy of the schemes is, to my mind, the paying of interest out of capital during the progress of the works. The old fashion was to pay dividends out of profits, but the new system is to pay dividends out of capital, and to put a tax upon those who have to find the guarantee. The only real occupation for the now railway will be with the traffic on fair and market days, and the rolling stock required for this purpose will be idle for 28 days out of the 31, and if rolling stock is to be borrowed from some distant places then nothing but a broad gauge line should be sanctioned. I am glad the Bill is introduced. It will afford us the opportunity of amending the Act of 1883. When that Act was passed it was originally projected that the Government should give 2 per cent and the local ratepayers 2 per cent, but through the pressure of a swindling syndicate I believe, and at the instance of a then hon. Member of this House, Captain. O'Shea, the guarantee was raised to. 5 per cent, the extra 1 per cent coming out of the pockets of credulous and unfortunate ratepayers. But I do not oppose the introduction of the Bill. I do not see that any substantial injury will be done except to the British taxpayers, who will be simply plundered a little more.
§ MR. LEA (Londonderry, S.)Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be distributed?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI cannot say, but I will undertake that no time shall be lost.
Question put, and agreed to.