HC Deb 18 July 1890 vol 347 cc275-305

8. Motion made, and Question proposed, That a gum not exceeding £182,873, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of Public Buildings in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, for Drainage Works on the River Shannon, for Payments under 'The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883,' and for Expenditure under The Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889.

(9.15.) MR. T. M. HEALY

I think it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, who, I presume, will be in his place in a moment, would upon this Vote make the statement which I understand he is prepared to make. It is being looked forward to with considerable interest in all the counties in Ireland, and I imagine that sufficient time has now elapsed to enable him to speak with fulness and completeness. Various complaints are made with regard to the conduct of certain contractors in Ireland who have been sitting in one part of the country as Judges and acting in another part of the country as contractors. A gentleman who has acted in one part of the country as a contractor sits under a Judge who has acted as a contractor in another part of the country. Each gentleman contracts and judges in rotation, and in this way the contractor of one man can be the judge of another, and the judge of one man the contractor of another. This state of things has given rise to great suspicion on this side of the House. I have no doubt, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to remove from our minds the suspicion we not unnaturally entertain of this sort of procedure. It is hardly necessary now to go into the matter with any minuteness.

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

Questions have been put in the House with reference to two lines which were inquired into by a Court of Inquiry appointed by the Board of Works under their statutory powers, and reference has also been made to two engineers who were appointed as members of the Courts, and who, I believe, have enjoyed a reputation for professional ability and skill, and as being men of great experience in connection with railways in Ireland. When the Courts of Inquiry had to be constituted, the Board of Works had to consider first the securing of the services of men who were thoroughly competent to discharge the duties. It would be almost impossible to obtain the services of any engineer of eminence in Ireland and of great experience in connection with railways who had not been at some previous time connected with one or other of the schemes which had been brought forward from time to time. It was important to secure the services of men who had experience, and it was the object of the Board of Works to select for the office of engineers men in whom they had confidence, and men whose opinions they believed would carry with them the confidence of the public. They had only one object, and that was to secure men who were competent and whose opinion would carry weight. It is true, no doubt, that two of the engineers who were selected had been connected in previous years with schemes for railways, two of which formed part of the schemes brought forward under the Act of last year. It has been said in the case of the Donegal and Killybegs line that the line was reported on by an engineer who, although not connected with that particular line, was interested in a line which had been promoted in County Galway, which it was said was reported upon by an engineer who was interested in the Donegal line. This is not quite correct. The scheme put forward of the line from Donegal to Killybegs included a branch from Inver to Glenties. The Court of Inquiry decided that it was not desirable to approach Glenties by means of the Donegal and Killybegs line, and that portion of the line was struck out of the scheme. The line was further altered by the Court of Inquiry because the limits of deviation were altered at the Killybegs end of the line; and I believe that those alterations of deviation were deemed to be great improvements in the scheme as put forward. The line, as approved, was approved by the Court as a whole, and I think that no one who knows the district can fail to come to the conclusion that the line from Donegal to Killybegs is one which will serve a useful purpose. It travels from Donegal through a dis- trict which is capable of considerable improvement, and at Killybegs it is possible to develop the fishing industry. I think that if this line is constructed it will prove to be a useful one for the fishing industry, and the development of the district. It also taps a district to the South-West of Donegal which, according to certain maps which have been prepared, is shown to be one of the most congested districts of Donegal; and it brings within reach the whole of that congested district of South-West Donegal. As to the Galway and Clifden line, I think that every one is agreed that the communication between those two places is essentially necessary, and that that communication should take the route via Oughterard. I have had the advantage of driving over a considerable portion of the route of this line, and I may remind the Committee that the project has been before the public for a great many years. I believe that in 1883 this line was promoted in competition with another line, and that it obtained the presentment of the Grand Jury in competition with another line which followed almost the same route. Following the presentment of the Grand Jury, the question was again fought out before the Privy Council, and the line which was in competition with it at that time was practically withdrawn. There has been a new and further inquiry, and several lines have again been brought forward and carefully inquired into, the inquiry being presided over by Sir John Ball Greene, the Commissioner of Valuation, and again after full and complete inquiry——

MR. T. M. HEALY

When was Sir John Ball Greene's inquiry?

* MR. JACKSON

On the schemes recently brought forward under the Act of 1889.

MR. T. M. HEALY

When?

* MR. JACKSON

This year. The same result has been brought about this time. After full and complete inquiry, and with sworn evidence taken relating to the various schemes, because there were at least three courses open: one to follow the coastline from Galway, and then work up to Clifden, and two lines viâ Oughterard, and following inland through the country, the Court of Inquiry decided that the line which had obtained the presentment of the Grand Jury was the best line put forward. The facts that the Courts of Inquiry were composed of men of eminence and reputation, that they had no other object but to find the best possible route for serving the districts through which the proposed lines would travel, that they came to the conclusion that the lines selected are the best for the purposes desired, and the fact also that these lines obtained the presentment of the Grand Jury, must carry weight. I need not go into the question of the evidence of the engineers, men of high position in their profession and character to command confidence, and the Committee may dismiss from their minds any doubt as to interested motives or bias in the minds of the engineers in favour of any particular route. With regard to the carrying out of those schemes, it has been the object of the Government, as far as possible, to secure the lines which are best calculated to serve the districts and counties through which they travel; and, secondly, as far as they can to secure the counties against future liability. I will not say they shall be entirely free from liability, for, as the Committee is aware, a baronial guarantee is given under Section 10, carrying with it liability for future maintenance and working. It has been, and still is, the object of the Government to secure, if possible, in every case where it is practicable—I do not say it is possible in every case—that the lines shall be entrusted to some contractor or company capable of carrying out the work in a satisfactory manner, and again, as far as possible, to make the working arrangements of the lines, when they are constructed, such as will relieve, if not entirely, at least as far as possible, the districts from further liability. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will place some confidence in the Government in connection with the schemes, because I need hardly say that the hands of the Government will be very much tied if they are called upon to declare absolutely they will make certain lines in any case or under any conditions. It is very desirable that the hands of the Government should be free to negotiate in the interests of the counties, so as to secure, as far as they can, by a first payment, the construction of the lines in a satisfactory manner, and so that they may endeavour, as far as possible, by that first payment to secure the counties from further liability.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Has any arrangement been arrived at with the Midland Great Western with reference to the lines?

* MR. JACKSON

With reference to the Midland Great Western, the district of that line covers not only the Galway and Clifden line and the means of communication between Westport and Mulranny and Ballina and Killala, but also the Mayo lines, and these would make a junction with the Midland Great Western. It has been the desire of the Government to ascertain whether it is possible to enlist the full and complete co-operation of the Midland Great Western Company with regard to the construction, working, and maintenance of those lines. The negotiations, however, are not complete, and it would not be in the interests of the districts or counties concerned that I should be called upon at present to enter into details. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will accept what I have said as an assurance that the Government are doing their utmost in the interests of the districts affected; and I am not without hope that they will successfully accomplish their object. There are other lines, and I would indicate those which the Government think it desirable should be made. In indicating those lines I would again impress on the Committee the extreme importance, not only to the Government, but to the districts concerned that the Government should have a free hand for their negotiations, and should not be hampered by unnecessary pledges, in order that they may be able to make the best bargain they can. Subject to the reservation that before any of the companies promoting a line can go for an Order in Council it must obtain the assent of the Government, and the arrangements must satisfy the Treasury. I may tell the Committee the lines the Government think may be aided or ought to be aided and carried into practical operation. There is a line projected from Baltimore to Skibbereen, and I need not point out that Baltimore is already a very important fishing station for a district in which the fishing industry has been largely developed by the great energy of Father Davis and others, aided as they have been by the munificence of Lady Burdett-Coutts. It is desirable the line should be made from Baltimore to Skibbereen, and I believe it will be possible to make satisfactory working arrangements with the adjoining company, the Cork and Bandon Company. Subject to this, I hope matters will before long be in such a condition that the work may be entered upon. There are also two lines in Kerry, both of them important, and in districts which it is desirable to open out—the Headford to Kenmare and the Killorglin to Valentia lines, both travelling through districts where the burden of rate is as heavy as anywhere in Ireland, and I assume that satisfactory arrangements will be made for the construction and subsequent working of the lines, and also with the companies with which the lines will be brought into connexion. I have, then, referred to the line from Galway to Clifden, and to the two lines in Mayo—Westport to Mulranny and Ballina to Killala—as railways the Government are anxious to see constructed. There are also two lines in Donegal, the Stranorlar to Fintown, possibly to Glen-ties, and the Donegal to Killybegs lines—and possibly a line from Buncrana to Carndonagh in the north-east of the county—to which I will refer. The line from Stranorlar to Fintown has been recommended as having received the approval of the Grand Jury, and the entire facts show that it is desirable that some means of communication should be given to what I may call the northern or the north-west portion of Donegal. It may become a question whether the line from Stranorlar should stop at Fintown or Glenties. Fintown is the point of junction with the southern portion of what is, perhaps, the second most congested district of Donegal; it was within easy reach, or six or seven miles, of a very large and much congested district. The line proposed to be made is a narrow gauge line, corresponding with that from Stranorlar to Donegal, now in existence, and the proposed line from Donegal to Killybegs, and it does appear to me essential to the harmonious working of the whole of these lines that the arrangements should be under one Board of Management. It is obvious that this would be a great advantage, because one management would arrange suitable times for trains through each district, and the rolling stock would be of the same type, and available for one line or another, according as interchange might be necessary to meet emergencies. This is one object the Government keep in view. There is a short line from Down-patrick to Ardglass, with respect to which I have received a deputation representing the district. Certainly Ardglass is an important fishing port. The County Down Railway Company are promoting this line, and I learn that the Grand Jury have made a presentment, which the Railway Company is prepared to accept; and I hope that arrangements may be made for the construction of this line and its working and maintenance by the County Down Railway Company, without any further liability being thrown on the county. These schemes will involve a total expenditure of between £800,000 and £900,000. I know of no reason when the basis of an agreement is satisfactorily settled—and I may say that to this end we have been for some time-working—when once a satisfactory agreement is come to with respect to two or three of these lines, why it should not form a basis of negotiation in the other cases. There are one or two other lines it is desirable should be made if money is at our disposal. One is a short, but costly, extension from Bantry to Bantry Pier. I hope it may be possible to come to arrangements for the making of that communication. There is another projected line from Buncrana to Carndonagh, promoted by the Louth Swilly Company, about which I also hope that some satisfactory arrangement may be made. It is certainly desirable that further means of communication should be provided for the north or northwestern portion of Donegal. If the Government can make arrangements by which the lines indicated can be constructed and worked, a very important step will have been taken in the opening up of these districts, and establishing communications with some of the most congested districts in Ireland. I hope that some of the lines will be promptly-made, and that the results will soon be seen in an improvement in the condition of the people.

(9.53.) COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

We have had a clear, and, I think, upon the whole, a satisfactory statement from the right hon. Gentleman. ["No, no."] Those expostulations come from Members who represent what cannot be called the congested districts. There can be no doubt the lines indicated will be of great benefit to Ireland. There is an immense amount of fishing undeveloped, because no market is available. There is in Connemara a mining industry in copper and lead unemployed for want of the assistance which only the railway can provide. You may say there is means of transit by sea, but it is perhaps the most stormy coast in the world, and internal means of communication are absolutely necessary, and in times of famine and scarcity the lamentable condition of these districts is felt throughout all Ireland; and, indeed, the whole of the Kingdom. I do not believe it is possible for the Government to take any step in Irish administration that will give more satisfaction than this opening of the congested districts by railway communication. I know some of the districts referred to, and my attention has been specially drawn to the Connemara lines. I appreciate the attention the right hon. Gentleman has given to proposed lines there, and his desire to be fair as between the conflicting interests in carrying on negotiations. My only fear is from want of expedition in arriving at a conclusion. Some of these lines were projected four years ago by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), and yet in Connemara absolutely nothing has been done. The Galway Grand Jury met to-day, but I do not know that they were expected to take any action to-day, and if the Report of the Grand Jury is to wait until next March, and then goes before the Privy Council, work may be deferred for another year. I would beg the Secretary to the Treasury to expedite the negotiations as much as possible. As to the particular line through Connemara I am perfectly neutral. I know the feeling is strong among the clergy there, and owners of property, in favour of the Oughterard route, and the whole question has been well thrashed out. I am only anxious that the decision should be carried outat once. My only fear is that the negotiations between the three bodies, the Treasury, the Grand Jury, and the Midland Great Western Company may break down. So far as I know the district, I do not care which plan is adopted, only I am anxious the line should be made at once, and I think I may say that if the Government act with expedition there will be few people who will not endorse their action. The Midland and Great Western Railway Company required a guarantee of £30,000 or £40,000 for the district. But a poor district does not like to guarantee more than the working expenses; they prefer to do that than to pay a lump sum. There are three other constituencies in the county, and two out of the three are making railroads of their own, and will naturally not derive much benefit from this scheme. But this I may say: I hope that the Treasury will use expedition. When they do right they ought to be praised, and in this thing they have done what is right and generous, but the value of their action will be lost if they allow the work to be put off from year to year.

(10.2.) MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)

I cannot altogether agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken. Of course, the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury is, to some extent, satisfactory. It is well to know that the Government intend to do something of the kind, but, considering how long they have had it in hand, I think we ought to have a little more definite statement as to the intentions of the Government. I think that in all probability they will fail in their designs. I maintain that if the Government really want to have these districts opened up, and if they wish to secure the prosperity of these places, they would allow us to do these things ourselves. Over and over again have different Governments embarked on enterprises of this kind. Large sums of public money have been misspent and wasted through the incapacity of the Treasury. Of course, I shall be very glad to see anything done for the benefit of these districts, which have been so shamefully neglected such a long time by successive Governments. But, in my opinion, they never will be benefited until we have a Government of our own.

(10.9.) MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

Four years have now elapsed since the Leader of this House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a great policy of light railways for Ireland, but up to the present time not a single penny has been spent. It is now nearly six months since the inquiries into these light railway projects were completed, and since then the right hon. Gentleman and his Board of Works in Ireland have been making up their minds which lines to promote. Had we a Parliament in Dublin we should not have wasted so much time; but when matters of this sort are left to strangers, and to strange officials, the schemes are naturally put off Session after Session. Now, I desire to-night to protest against the adoption of one of these schemes. During the last few months I have asked several questions about the projected Killy begs and Donegal line, and also about the Galway scheme. I say nothing about the latter, because I am extremely impressed with the desirability of some line being constructed in that district. But I may say I wish some engineer other than Mr. Barton had promoted the line.—[An hon. MEMBER: Mr. Price.]—It does not matter whether it was Mr. Price or Mr. Barton. They have been working this thing together, and the line promoted by one in Donegal is reported on by his confederate, while the other promotes a line in Galway which his confederate reports upon. This is the real gist of my complaint against the Government. They have a large number of engineers they can select from, but they actually choose two gentlemen who are personally pecuniarily interested to report on lines promoted by each other. I think that that is a scandalous thing, which requires explaining by the Government. Now I come to the question of the Donearal and Killybegs line, which is one of the most scandalous jobs ever perpetrated in my memory. In the first place, the line is being promoted by the West Donegal Railway Company, which is notoriously insolvent, and the sub-section of the Act passed last year, which forbids the granting of laws to a company of that kind, has been violated in this case. The Royal Commission reported against this line last year, but when I questioned the right hon. Gentleman on that point he told me the Report was against the route, and not against the line. But what is the difference? The Grand Jury are in favour of a different route, but because that is convenient for a noble Lord, who is a supporter of the Government, it is to be carried out. It is said that it will serve a congested district; but the only congested district that it is near is that of Glencolumbkill, and that district is separated from the proposed line of railway by a high range of mountains. It is equally absurd to say that this line will be of any use in developing the fisheries. From a Report which was issued a few days ago we find that in the Killybegs division there are 142 fishing boats and 817 fishermen registered. But this relates to no less than 135 miles of coast, whereas the railway could only serve about 15 miles. If that fact cannot be disputed, what justification is there for the adoption of this route? I invite the right hon. Gentleman to deny the accuracy of the facts I have stated. But that is not all. This line is in competition with the Stranorlar line, which has been unanimously approved by the Grand Jury of Donegal, who have passed a guarantee for the working expenses of the line. Then there has been no opposition to this line from any quarter what-ever, while it has been officially declared that upon its merits the line is superior to any other line which could be constructed in the district. Yet the Treasury prefer to adopt the Killybegs scheme, and reject this Stranorlar line. I call on the Secretary to the Treasury, if he can, to explain this proposed scandalous waste, of public money.

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

Before saying a few words on the Donegal scheme I desire to recall to the House the fact that we are not now discussing the appropriation of money from the British Exchequer. We shall, no doubt, hereafter be told of the ungracious way in which the Irish Members accepted or declined to accept British money for the development of Irish resources. But this is not British money. It is Irish money. No British money is spent in Ireland, nor has any been spent since the Union; on the contrary, Ireland has for years overpaid its fair proportion to the British Exchequer. What the landlords draw from Ireland is but a email portion of the money taken out of the island. The money now under discussion is Irish money, and who are to be the arbitrators of the manner in which it shall be expended? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds, while the Members for Ireland are to have no effective voice in its appropriation. The history of these schemes is in itself sufficient to convince all reasoning men of the utter inability of the English portion of this House to administer the affairs of Ireland. What does this particular scheme, however the details may be carried out, involve? It involves a certain charge on the cesspayers of Ireland. One would have considered it was the initial duty of the Treasury, before sanctioning a scheme involving such a charge, to ascertain the condition of cess in the county of Donegal. If they had done so they would have found that in some portions of Donegal the cess is two years in arrear. Within the last week the Grand Jury have passed a resolution that they are unable to undertake any new works for want of money. How can the Government expect to get a contribution equal to 5 per cent. of the cess for Donegal over and above what the people there are now paying? You cannot do it. How can the Government bring forward schemes which will further increase the burden of the cesspayers? I wash my hands of the whole scheme. In the name of my constituency I protest against any farther imposition in the shape of cess being thrown upon it.

(10.28.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman is much more anxious to preserve the interests of the cess- payers than are the cesspayers themselves. He knows perfectly well that if the proposed lines in this country were abandoned no people in Donegal would be more bitterly disappointed than those whom he represents.

MR. A. O'CONNOR

I am prepared to take that responsibility.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Member said we were dealing with Irish money. But the hon. Member was a party to the Home Rule Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and to the financial arrangements embodied in that Bill. As the hon. Member himself will perfectly know, England and Scotland will pay not merely two-thirds but five-sixths of the whole money given.

MR. T. M. HEALY

What about the Union?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I presume the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to what occurred in 1800.

MR. T. M. HEALY

1815.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am alluding to a much more recent transaction—to what occurred in 1886. Both the hon. Gentleman who interrupts me and the hon. Gentleman who has last spoken must be perfectly well aware that they were not merely consenting parties, but enthusiastically consenting parties to the financial arrangements embodied in the Bill of 1886 between the two countries. That being so it does not lie in their mouths to say that the money now voted out of the Imperial Exchequer is Irish and not British money.

MR. A. O'CONNOR

The right hon. Gentleman has not the least ground for saying that or anything like it. I was not only not an enthusiastic supporter of portion of the scheme, but it was distinctly understood among our own ranks that that was open to Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes; but I never heard it stated to Home Rule constituencies in England that one of the incidents of Home Rule would be that Ireland would bear much less than its present share of the common burdens of the two countries. I learn that now for the first time. I am very glad to learn now that an integral part of the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite is to make the Home Rule Bill an occasion for greatly increasing the burdens of the English taxpayer and greatly lightening the burdens of the Irish taxpayer. Now, on the question of the charge on the cesspayer, I would point out to hon. Gentlemen that one thing to be aimed at in this Bill, and in the negotiations, is to diminish as far as possible the charge on the Irish cesspayer. It was a necessary incident of the Tramways Act passed in 1883 by the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow that a great charge should be made upon the cesspayers in any district where tramways or light railways were carried out. We felt, as we still feel, the evils of that system. We felt when we passed the Bill, and we still feel, that the more we can make arrangements by which the liability of the cesspayer shall be diminished, and the responsibility of working those lines shall be thrown on independent companies, the better it will be for the future of the districts through which the railways pass; and when the Government are reproached for delay I would remind the hon. Member that that delay is due to our anxiety to form such arrangements with responsible railway companies as will relieve the cesspayer of that particular liability which the hon. Member for Galway complains of. The hon. Member for North Dublin told the Committee that if he had had the management of this affair, or an Irish Parliament had had the management of it, the whole thing would have been settled in a month. If so it would have been very badly settled. I am perfectly confident, from my knowledge of the negotiations that have been carried on upon this matter, that, if the Government had come forward and said that whatever anybody else might do they were determined to have a railway constructed between this point and that point, the railway would have been constructed, but a very great and unnecessary expense and a very superfluous burden would have been cast on the cesspayers of the district through which the railway passed, and it was in the interest not of the Government but of the cesspayers that the delay occurred. The Committee knows, or the Committee might know, that localities do not look very far ahead in these matters. Provided they can be assured that a certain number of hundreds or thousands of pounds of public money are to be spent in the course of two or three years on works of public utility, they are apt to shut their eyes to the question of future liability. I am afraid examples of that have already occurred in Ireland, and if it were not for the care exercised by the Government in spending the money voted last year, such cases would be multiplied. Only to-day a question was asked across the floor of the House regarding a threatened strike against a cess voluntarily accepted by the locality under the Act of 1883. Whether our efforts will or will not be found a success I at all events claim for my right hon. Friend and myself that both in framing the Bill and in carrying it out we have never for one instant lost sight of the absolute necessity of trying to frame these schemes in a manner which shall, as far as possible, relieve the localities of future liability. The hon. Gentleman has told us that four years have elapsed since this policy was announced. Why, the Bill under which we are now acting was only passed last year, and that it was not passed some years before was no fault of Her Majesty's Government.

MR. CLANCY

You did not bring it in until last year.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am perfectly aware of that. The hon. Gentleman is unable to restrain his ardour for interruption. It was not brought in until last year. Why? Because the House was occupied in carrying out in other Departments the policy of my noble Friend the Member for Paddington. And when it was brought in last year does not everybody know that it was only with the utmost difficulty, in face of the opposition given to it by Members sitting on the other side, that the Government were able to carry it into law? This measure has been truly described by the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway as one which is likely to do more good than any other which has been passed, yet it was carried with the utmost difficulty against the opposition of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House—["Oh"]—some of them; I do not say all. The opposition set up came from the other side of the House, and I am afraid the reception which my right hon. Friend's statement has met with shows that, whether the Government succeed or not in benefiting the districts through which these railways are to pass, we shall not earn the gratitude of those who profess to represent those districts. With reference to the criticisms upon the scheme for constructing a railway from Donegal to Killybegs, I have only to reply that it does not require 15 miles of coast line to justify you in making a railway for the purpose of assisting a fishing industry. Whether a line is or is not fitted to encourage such industry does not depend on the length of coast along which it passes. ["Bosh."] I should have thought that waselementary knowledge—but on the character of the harbour on which it abuts and its capacity for supporting a fishing population. This line meets the West Donegal line. The hon. Member told us that the West Donegal lines are bad. I cannot pretend that they are strong; but I believe the proposal to join the lines, thus giving control of a common rolling stock, will do much to improve their prospects. With regard to the proposed line for Stranorlar, it was not proposed to carry that beyond Glenties. That is a question which not only depends upon the character of the country, but upon the total amount of money we have to deal with. How the money will be disposed of must depend upon the careful consideration of the circumstances of the case, and it is not necessary nor even advisable that we should commit ourselves to additional lines beyond Glenties, until we know what other claims we shall have upon us. I will not pretend to be disappointed with the reception which my right hon. Friend's clear and able statement has met with from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am nevertheless convinced that nothing has yet ever been proposed for the benefit of the population of the West of Ireland which is more likely to develop their resources, and in a healthy, salutary manner enable them to develop the industries and capacities of the country which they inhabit. I trust that whatever hon. Gentlemen may think it proper to say in this Committee, they will not, at all events, throw any substantial obstacle in the way of the Government carrying these schemes into effect.

(10.55.) MR. T. M. HEALY

The right hon. Gentleman, in consequence of the remarks of my hon. Friend, has-entered into a discussion of the Home-Rule Bill of 1886, and the financial arrangements made thereunder between the two countries, with a species of ingenuity that is his own, and I find it difficult, Sir, to deal effectually with a subject which he has discussed to-night in such a remarkable manner. That we are dealing with Irish money and not Imperial money cannot be doubted. When our country was swindled at the time of the Union it was only paying on a debt of £12,000,000. It is now paying on a debt of £600,000,000 or £700,000,000. I maintain that since 1852 or 1853, when Ireland was first obliged to pay Income Tax and increased Spirit Duty, she has paid to England a sum greater than that paid by France to Germany for the War Indemnity. When, in consequence of the discussions on this year's Budget, you found yourselves obliged to appoint a Committee to inquire into the fiscal relations between the two countries, is it surprising that we, with our strong sense of grievance on this matter, should1 declare that this is Irish money which you are now dealing with, and is only a portion of the restitution which you should make in much larger measure towards Ireland? I decline at the present moment to discuss what are the transactions which we had hoped to see carried out under the Home Rule Bill. That is a matter which we shall be able to deal with when the proper time comes. In spite of the seductive invitation of the right hon. Gentleman, who sat down twice in order-that he might get himself interrupted, I refuse to insert in the interstices of this Debate a discussion as to what were our views, and what were our objections to the Home Rule Bill. I altogether deny the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made that, but for the care and anxiety of the Government, the localities would have compensated themselves to a much larger extent than they are able to bear. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that under the Tramways Act of 1883 the localities, which gladly and freely entered into fiscal arrangements, are now threatening to strike, in consequence of the grievous burden. Now, if there ever was a case capable of confutation' it is that; and if the right hon. Gentleman had considered his words for a moment he would not have advanced it, because the localities which entered into these arrangements had no more to say to them than the people of Laputa. The gentlemen who passed these schemes were the Grand Jurors, who do not pay a single shilling of the rates. All they want is to have railways running up to their doors, and other people to pay for them; just as the magnificent walls which are built around their estates, and which excite the wonder of all who see them, have all been built out of the rates imposed by the Grand Jurors, who always put these jobs on the counties when they can. It is only within the last 40 years that the people have asserted themselves and traversed this state of things, and, for my part, I would say that, bad as the Grand Jurors are, I should not be afraid to trust them with the entire administration of the Tramways Act, if the rates were equally divided between the owner and occupier. If this were done the Government would as easily get a milestone to dance as get a Grand Juror to pass a tramway scheme. The right hon. Gentleman has excused himself by saying that the ratepayers are willing to undertake these great and heavy burdens. That I altogether deny; but, at the same time, I am not prepared to say that the Government have not considerable difficulty in dealing with this matter. Indeed, I will not criticise the attitude of the Secretary to the Treasury in regard to the Midland Railway, either in Galway or in Mayo. But this is quite apart from the question of the delays, which I think has been needless. I say I think it was desirable to pass the Act and get the money, and, Parliament having provided the means, we are here now to consider their allocation. I think the Treasury have taken needless time in preparing their scheme. The right hon. Gentleman has omitted some of the chief factors for our consideration. For instance, he has not stated, in the case of any single line, what is the amount to be allotted to that line. Consequently, the right hon. Gentleman has left out the chief element for enabling us to come to a determination; and we have not been treated with that fulness of exposition which we have a right to expect in this matter. Again, the Committee has not heard how many of these lines are to be narrow-gauge railways. That is a most crucial point for examination. For my own part, I entirely deprecate the making of any more narrow-gauge lines. It may be said "that half a loaf is better than no bread," and that half a railway being better than none at all, a line of three-feet gauge is better than being unable to make one of five feet three inches. But I say, is it desirable? Supposing you intend to make arrangements with the Midland Company that you should travel on the broad-gauge to Galway and then change carriages and get upon a narrow-gauge line. I would rather have one good line in Ireland than half a dozen bad ones. I admit that the Government are anxious to mete out the gold which is bursting the Treasury to as great an extent as possible; but if the districts were prepared to take a national, instead of a local, view of the matter, they would agree that one good broad-gauge line would be better than a number of narrow-gauge lines. When I contemplate the list of railways the Government hope to be able to bring into existence, I am naturally struck by the supposition that they are going to make them as cheaply as possible, and, if so, they will be narrow-gauge lines. The Committee will remember that poor Lord Redesdale had one good idea: he was bitterly opposed to narrow-gauge railways, against which he always set his face, one consequence of which was that we in Ireland were spared from a good deal of the commotion that would have arisen from the construction of such lines. I deprecate the suggestion that a lot of these lines are to be narrow-gauge lines. Some of them must be so because of their connection with existing narrow-gauge lines; but so great is the scandal of the narrow-gauge system that there is a bit of broad-gauge line in Donegal which runs up to the Lough Swilly line, and because the Letterkenny line was a broad-gauge line, will it be believed that they pulled it up and made it a narrow-gauge to fit the other line? I concur in every word uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin with regard to the Galway line. I do not think it is a line which the Government should be called on to make, although I approve of the proposed line from Galway to Clifden. To say that eminent engineers approve of the line is to say that all engineers are eminent who have an eminent disregard for the Ten Commandments. I once heard a man ask another what religion he was, and the answer was "a civil engineer." That is exactly the religion of Messrs. Barton and Price. The psalm-singing person Mr. Barton, when he was promoting these lines, needed to hold an evangelistic service at Ballina, and I have no doubt that is the method by which Mr. Barton secured the sympathy of the Government and secured the success of his scheme. If the Government like to throw away their money on Messrs. Barton and Price that is their affair—though we shall be prepared to criticise and attack the proceeding—but do not let them say, "We have employed eminent engineers." We shall have but one answer for them, whatever excuse or explanation they offer—"Barton and Price," "Price and Barton"—and upon those two names we shall ring the changes. Another thing I wish to say with regard to this matter is this: Why were not the Irish Members consulted with regard to the making of some of these lines? I do not say that they have thrown away their money in all these cases, but I do say that the case was one in which the Irish Party should have been consulted. If they had been, Scotch lines affecting the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, will it be suggested for a moment that the Unionist Members from Scotland would not have been consulted? Why they would have been up the Lord Advocate's sleeve every afternoon. But so far as I am aware not a single Irish Member has been consulted in regard to these Irish Railways. No one can say that we could have a more reasonable Secretary to the Treasury than the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We all recognise his courtesy, but, at the same time, we are entitled to complain of the way this business has been conducted. We are told that we are an integral part of the Imperial Parliament, but we are forgotten when it becomes inconvenient to remember our existence. The Irish Members not having been consulted, they repudiate all responsibility in connection with this matter. It is for us to see that, however you lay out this money, you do not make the localities responsible. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, when he talks about his anxiety not to make the localities responsible, should listen to the tale of woe I can 'present to him. When he boasts of the bounty of the Government, in the matter of these light railways, I would refer him to page 64 of the estimate. He will find there mention made of the Cork and Muskerry line; and in connection with that I would point out that the Government have broken their pledges, and that, although scandals are pretty generally associated with the action of the Government, the financial meanness they have exhibited in this matter is something altogether new. They have acted with financial meanness in breach of their own Act of Parliament—the Tramway Act of 1883—in the case of this Cork and Muskerry line. The estimate says that the whole length of this railway is 18½ miles; the percentage guaranteed is 5 per cent., and the authorised capital £75,000. It says, further, that the probable claim on the baronies for interest—which is for 12 months, I presume—will be £2,463. The estimated contribution shows a maximum of £986. That, of course, is a 5 per cent. guarantee, and the county only gets from the Government two-fifths, or less than £986. By the 9th section of the Tramways Act the Treasury are required to contribute 2 per cent., but the Treasury has shirked this obligation. It has not carried out that which it is obliged to carry out, and has refused the Directors of this Cork and Muskerry Railway, who are Loyalists to a man, this 2 per cent. I know what I am talking about, because I have seen all the correspondence. I have seen the repudiation by the Treasury and the Board of Works of their obligation under the Act. If they do not repudiate it they must have changed their ground during the past fortnight. What are the Cork and Muskerry Directors going to do now? Why, in their extremity they are going to apply to the Irish Attorney General for leave to file a petition of right to compel the Treasury to pay the money they claim.

* MR. JACKSON

The hon. and learned Member will see that the £986 to be paid by the Treasury is two-fifths of the whole amount.

MR. T. M. HEALY

That is not so. The figures as the right hon. Gentleman has arranged them in the estimate may carry out his view; but he cannot deny that there is a question pending between himself and the Directors of the Cork and Muskerry Railway. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that?

* MR. JACKSON

I have no knowledge of it.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Will he deny that the Board of Works have refused to assist the Cork and Muskerry Company? I have seen the letters bearing upon the question myself. The point was raised by question in this House, and yet the right hon. Gentleman opposite says he has no knowledge of it. The Directors are about to take steps to recover the money; but how are they to recover it if the Treasury persist in their refusal? It is a serious question whether the petition of right would lie, as all sorts of technicalities can be raised. I do not see how the company can apply for a petition of right, as they are not aggrieved—they can get it from the baronies. Who, then, is the party to bring an action? Only some cesspayer in the County of Cork who may not be affected to a greater amount than £1 a year, and can it be expected of such a person to enter into a litigation with the Treasury? I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to guarantee that in the future no liability shall fall on the baronies.

*(11.17.) MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)

I maintain that the two speeches we have heard from the Treasury Bench are absolutely inconsistent, not only in tone but in substance. We do not, of course, expect to get from the Chief Secretary that courtesy which we always get from the Secretary to the Treasury, but I maintain that, apart from the question of tone, the two speeches were absolutely inconsistent in their substance. The Chief Secretary says that the great care of the Government will be to prevent any burden falling on the localities which the localities will be unable to bear. Well, but if only half the scheme indicated by the Chief Secretary is carried out, a burden upon the cesspayers will be inevitable. The Secretary to the Treasury has the best of intentions for our people, but good intentions by themselves will not be sufficient to make railways in Ireland, and the money that the Government has at its disposal under Acts of Parliament is not anything like sufficient to pay for the railways referred to. Why, I venture to say that one railway alone—that from Galway to Clifden—will not cost less than £300,000, and I make that statement on good authority. If so much money as this is required, how, I ask, are all these other railways to be constructed with the small amount of money which the Government has at its disposal? If all these railways are attempted, they can only be completed by resorting to the ruinous system of baronial guarantees, which has been tried and has failed. The answer of the Secretary to the Treasury is that the baronial guarantee is accepted by the locality. I think my hon. and learned Friend has dealt with that matter. It is a mere farce to say that the Grand Juries in any part of Ireland represent the localities. They do not. They represent the landlords of, the localities. If the right hon. Gentleman means that the landlords of a particular locality, having accepted a burden, are bound to bear that burden, then in those counties in which there is default in cess, levy it on the landlords, and you will be pursuing a course of natural justice. But the people who are now bound by law to pay this money are not the people who have accepted the burden. They have never been consulted, and there is no form in which they can be consulted. I grant it may be possible in some cases to get a meeting together to approve a scheme. We all know what that means. A number of people get together and pass resolutions, because they think it a cheap way of obtaining railway facilities for their district. Such resolutions are not worth anything. Let me give an instance in which, according to the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, a burden has been accepted by a locality. I want to know whether the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) thinks his constituents approve of the burden which the Grand Jury has imposed on some of them in the case of the Ardglass Railway. Ardglass is a place to which a railway certainly ought to have been made, and I believe would have been made before this had it not been for the pernicious influence of this system of legislation, by which everybody is taught to look for Government grants instead of relying on his own resources. The County Down Railway Company pays 6 per cent. on its ordinary shares, and they should make this line themselves as a feeder. No doubt the line would not pay by itself, but it would pay as a feeder, and I believe the company would have constructed it themselves had it not been for the hope that they would get the Government to make it. The cesspayers, some of whom are nearly 30 miles away from the district affected, will have to pay cess for the construction of this line, which to many of them will be of no benefit whatever. I deny that it would be possible to obtain by representative means any authority for putting this burden on the county. As the County Down is a rich county, I do not suppose it will be a very serious burden, but I am certain that if it were as serious to the County Down as similar burdens are to counties in the West of Ireland, many of the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters would carry their opposition to it so far as to strike against a tax to which they never assented. I do not know whether the House has considered the ruinous terms on which this money has been and will be raised. The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) said a little while ago that if there were a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland this money could not be raised on as good terms. I deny that entirely. On all the railways made under the Act of 1883, except the West Clare, there was a guarantee of 5 per cent., which I contend is a ridiculous guarantee to give an investor in these days. Two per cent. of that is an Imperial guarantee. I suppose that if 2 per cent. Imperial Stock were issued to-morrow it would be at about £70 for each £100. You have, therefore. only £30 left. There is a 3 per cent. baronial guarantee to cover this remaining £30. This is equivalent to saying that if the barony wanted to borrow money it would have to pay 10 per cent. for it. That is preposterous. The fact is, that under the present system such good terms cannot be obtained as could be obtained if, under a representative system, the people were able to go into the open market and get the money for themselves. I believe the Government will find that there will be considerable difficulties to contend with as a consequence of the existing guarantees. Take the case of the Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon Railway, the longest of the lines made under the Act of 1883. The total capital amounted to £200,000. The burden on the districts concerned is so heavy that they are almost unable to bear it, and soon they will be entirely unable to bear it. Leitrim is a poor county. A great part of it was scheduled as a congested district under the Land Purchase Bill of this Session. In part of Cavan, too, the burden is very heavy, and I have the authority of the Grand Jury of Cavan for saying that the burden upon the people is too heavy for them to bear. In a resolution sent to me by the Grand Jury, with their strong recommendation, they talk of the people as "an overtaxed and extremely poor class of small farmers residing on bad mountain land" and "who are totally unable to pay this enormous tax in addition to the ordinary county cess." Well, these men will not go on much longer endeavouring to do what the Grand Jury say they are unable to do, and the Government will find that, instead of making any more railways, they will have first to pay off the burden that they by their incompetence have thrown on these localities under the Act of 1883. The people in some parts of Ireland, where there was a guarantee under another Act, have already com- bined against the payment of the extra railway cess. Several men have been sent to gaol for resisting the Sheriff in attempts to resist payment of the cess, and the Government will, perhaps, find in the end that, in view of the heavy cost of the police, and the extra expenses of levying the county cess, it would have been better for the Government to have assumed part of the burden by substituting a 3 per cent. Government guarantee, and so relieving the cesspayers. The shareholders are selling their shares at considerably over par. Having invested their money on a 5 per cent. guarantee, they are now getting an enormous profit out of the poverty of the people, and I think it possible that the people may not go on very long ministering to the riches of these shareholders. No doubt the intentions of the Government are excellent. The Secretary to the Treasury thinks he is working for the good of Ireland. The Chief Secretary thinks he is providing his followers in this country with an excellent argument to use on the platforms against us. He thinks they will be able to point to the largesses he has bestowed on the people of Ireland. I think it very possible that the result of the Chief Secretary's action will not be to illustrate the great merit of his policy, but rather to show the want of merit of his proposed policy under the Land Purchase Bill. What would be the value of his guarantees under the Land Purchase Bill if it be proved by strikes against extra cess that the Government cannot levy an extra tax which has been imposed upon the people without the people's consent? I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £200.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item K, Light Railways, be reduced by £200."—(Mr. Knox.)

(11.35.) MR. CRILLY (Mayo, N.)

I was one of the Irish Members who last year supported the passage of the Bill, in the hope that it would, to some extent, develop the resources and establish the prosperity and comfort of the poor people in the West of Mayo and the North of Mayo, whom I have the honour to represent. I have no doubt that had the Bill of last year been received by the House with a little more consideration, we who supported it might have been able to make it a better measure, and one that would have been more workable in the interest both of the poorer districts of Ireland and of the cesspayers of Ireland. However, we have to take the Bill as it stands, and I am afraid that, after having listened to the greater portion of the statement of the right hon, Gentleman, it is a case of much cry and little wool. To my mind, the scheme as he set it forth to-night, will do very little indeed in developing the resources, or in improving the position and increasing the comfort, of the people of the Western coast of Mayo. Like my hon. Friend who sits below me, I have no desire to press the right hon. Gentleman as to what arrangement he intends to make with the Chairman of the Midland Railway Company, but I would impress on him the necessity of making some early arrangement with the Midland Company, in order that the main line, which is to be constructed, if possible, under this Bill, shall be made from Ballina to Bel-mullet. There are only three courses open to the Government in this matter. They must run a line round the South Coast to Belmullet, or they must run a line of railway from Ballina round the coast to Belmullet, or run one direct from Ballina to Belmullet. Each of these three routes has been reported on favourably. In connection with this matter it is an extraordinary thing that the ubiquitous Mr. Barton turns up again. This Mr. Barton seems to have had a finger in every railway pie in Ireland. He reported favourably upon this line, but the Government have delayed making it, whilst they are doing their utmost to push on the two lines in which Mr. Barton and Mr. Price are themselves concerned. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to develop as much as he can the light railway system of Ireland, but I wish he would push on as rapidly as possible the arrangement he intends to make with the Midland Railway Company. The Committee will admit that a considerable time has elapsed since the Board of Works and the Treasury came together to decide as to what lines should be constructed. I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not allow an equally long period to elapse before he lays before the House the arrangement he has come to on behalf of the Treasury with the Midland Railway Company, because he himself will acknowledge that you cannot open out the west and north of Mayo unless by some means or other you connect Belmullet on the extreme west coast of Mayo with Ballina, or Castlebar, or some of the other towns. It is essential that Belmullet should be placed in communication with the markets whore the people can find a ready sale for the fish which they catch in such large quantities.

(11.45.) MR. DILLON

I have sat here in silence for the last two hours a witness of the extraordinary spectacle of the Treasury pressing on Ireland large sums of money that have not been urgently asked for by the people. I do not oppose those grants, although to me it is most melancholy that the construction of these railways cannot be taken in hand by private enterprise. Here am I, the Representative of one of the most congested districts in Ireland. I want half a dozen railroads made. I have not opposed the scheme of the Government, and yet to my horror and despair I find my district entirely left out of consideration. I would be glad to accompany the right hon. Gentleman on a tour of the district. I would invite him to gridiron the district with railroads and spend as large a sum as possible out of the British Exchequer in opening up communication between the various villages I have the honour to represent. There cannot be the slightest doubt in the world that a more foolish measure could not possibly be adopted. The right hon. Gentleman has accused us of obstructing a beneficent Treasury. I invite him to spend £500,000 in East Mayo, where he has not proposed to spend a single shilling. My constituents are poor, and they will turn out and construct the railways. As long as they are paid decent wages for making the railways, they will make them. If you make the bribe sufficiently large and tempting they will give you any quantity of guarantees, because they know perfectly well they will not be able to pay them. I have no doubt that the Grand Jury of Mayo will guarantee 5, 6, or 10 per cent. Let the Government corns forward next year and bring in a proper Bill, a reasonable proposal to open up proper communication through Northern Mayo, Eastern Mayo, Southern and Western Mayo, regardless of expense, and regardless, also, of the question whether the railroads will pay for the coal burnt or the grease which is necessary for the wheels. I venture to say that if the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to checkmate us and compel us to vote this English money, he will succeed. If he proposes: to spend a quarter or even half a million sterling in Eastern Mayo on the guarantee of the cess of that district, I certainly would not find myself in a position to vote against the proposal. I do not pretend to say he would ever get the money back; but I do not find myself in a position to oppose such a scheme-I rose to protest against the Secretary to the Treasury or the Chief Secretary even complaining that we obstruct any quantity of English money being spent in Ireland. Get shovels, get all the ships of the British Navy, and shovel or ship over as much gold as you like. Pave the bogs with British sovereigns, and I shall vote with you with all my heart.

(11.50.) MR. O'HANLON (Cavan, E.)

The Secretary to the Treasury spoke about railways in Donegal, but I venture to say he scarcely knew anything of what he was talking about. The Chief Secretary knows less. The Secretary to the Treasury told us about a line from Donegal to Killybegs. He spoke of great advantages that would accrue to the fishing industry. What can be gained by a line of railway along the sea coast? He spoke of other lines. He mentioned, for instance, a line from Letterkenny, but he gave us no particulars. Still, the right hon. Gentleman and the Chief Secretary receive the pay of the nation; for what? For doing nothing but making statements to the British public about something of which they know nothing. It is astonishing that the English people can with patience listen to such statements as are constantly made from the Treasury Bench. The Chief Secretary delivered a speech upon this Vote, but did not wait five minutes to hear the discussion. Will any hon. Gentleman tell me the Secretary to the Treasury or the Chief Secretary know anything of what they have been talking about? The noes have it. I believe the object the Chief Secretary had in bringing this matter before the House was to see if we would offer any opposition, so that the Unionist Member for South Tyrone and other parts of Ireland could go to Ireland and say that the Nationalist Members opposed the light railway scheme. We are not going to give the scheme any opposition, but we are going to tell the country and the world that the gentlemen whose duty it is to give information to the House know nothing of what they have been talking about. I do not think there is any use in me wasting the time of the House, but I could not remain silent when I heard such statements as those made from the Treasury Bench.

*(11.57.) MR. JACKSON

In answer to a question of the hon. and learned Member for Longford, let me say that the lines which join other railways will be of the usual gauge, but that the others will be of a narrower gauge.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee to sit again upon Monday next.