§
Resolution reported:—
That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the Interest, at the rate of Three per cent., on £260,000 of the Capital of the West Highland Railway Company, and to pay a sum of money, not exceeding £30,000, to that Company; and to authorise the payment, out of moneys to he provided by Parliament, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be necessary for those purposes.
§ Resolution read a second time.
§ MR. HANBURYproposed: "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ * MR. STRACHEYsaid, he rose to say that he would take up the challenge given them earlier in the evening by the Leader of the House, and to show that the Bill was really contentious, he would divide the Committee, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, it must be distinctly understood that if the Bill were dropped, 1105 it was dropped because the hon. Gentleman and his Friends were determined to prevent that being passed which the Government thought would prove of great advantage to the poorer districts of Scotland.
§ * MR. DAVID THOMASassociated himself with the opposition to the Bill at the present time, and he was quite prepared to accept any responsibility that might attach to such a course. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given some undertaking to a private individual during the General Election.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThis is an utterly unfair charge against me. [Cheers.] I was asked by one of the principal promoters of the scheme, and one of the largest landowners in the district—Cameron of Lochiel—whether Her Majesty's Government would fulfil the agreement which had been entered into by the late Government. I could not refuse to answer that question. I felt myself bound by the agreement, and I said I would try to give the earliest possible effect to the pledge which had been given. [Ministerial cheers and cries of "Withdraw."]
§ * MR. DAVID THOMASsaid, that he should not labour the point, but he still maintained that the promise was given at an important time. [Ministerial cries of "Withdraw."] He had nothing to withdraw. But his stronger reason for entering a protest was that it was altogether unreasonable at this period of the Session to expect the House to commit itself to what, if not a new principle, was, at any rate, a very considerable extension of an old principle. He was not prepared to extend all Irish legislation to England and Scotland under such circumstances.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid, that the view which was taken by him of this promise given by the Government was not in any way a charge against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the letter 1106 which he wrote to the promoters of this Bill was, practically, kept back until a very few days before the Election, and was used as an electioneering card by the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged. Then, one of the Agents for the promoters of the Bill actually came to the door of the House and told him that if he went on opposing the Bill he would hear of it in his constituency. When such talk as that went on, it showed that the promoters had not been very wisely guided. The pledge which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of as having been given by his predecessor was not given by his predecessor at all. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "Yes, it was."] Not in the first instance. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor only adhered to a pledge given by the previous Conservative Government. If the right hon. Gentleman would deny that, let him state his authority to the Committee. When this Bill was brought forward by the late Government, night after night, the then Secretary to the Treasury gave as his reason for its introduction, that the late Conservative Government had pledged themselves to the Bill. The very day the last Conservative Government went out of office, the undertaking was signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. Of course, Cameron, of Lochiel wanted the Bill. He was one of the promoters of the Bill, and one of the men who were going to gain by the Bill. But he was not going to give one single inch of land for the benefit of the Company. This Bill was brought forward, not in the interests of Scotland as a whole, but in the interests of a handful of landlords who were not sacrificing a farthing in the interests of the railway, but were asking the Treasury to give them about a quarter of a million of the taxpayers' money, without any assurance as to how it was to be spent. This Bill ought not to be passed at the fag end of a Session as a non-contentious measure. It required very 1107 careful consideration, both in principle and in detail.
§ * THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was perfectly true that, this proposal having been favourably reported on by a Commission and a Committee, the present First Lord of the Admiralty promised a guarantee on certain conditions; but those conditions were not accepted at the time, and it was perfectly open to the late Government to deal with the question as they liked. Two months before he left office his predecessor made a formal agreement with this company, which this Bill was intended to carry out. That was an agreement, by which he was morally and legally bound, and that was the agreement he asked the House to carry out. [Cheers.] It amounted to a guarantee for 30 years of £7,800 for constructing and maintaining a railway 40 miles in length through a part of the Highlands which was absolutely without railways, and which could never obtain a railway in any other way; and at the end it was proposed to construct a harbour of inestimable benefit to the fisheries. [Cheers.] This Bill was now opposed by two Scotch Members.
§ * MR. DAVID THOMASasked, on a point of Order, whether the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to speak a second time?
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not spoken before; he had only interrupted the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr to correct what he conceived to be a mis-statement.
§ * THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Member not only attributed false motives to his action, but sought to prevent him from speaking. [Cheers.] He intended to speak. [Cheers.] This Bill was opposed, not by Highland Members, or by those interested in the development of the Highlands, but by two Lowland Scottish Members, he believed acting, although 1108 they might not know it, solely in the interest of rival railway companies. [Cheers.]
§ MR. DALZIELI rise to a point of Order. I heard a remark made by the Attorney General at this moment. "Probably paid." [Cheers.] I wish, Sir, to have an explanation of that remark, and I shall have a personal explanation to make afterwards.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALI ought not to have said that, and I unreservedly withdraw it. [Opposition cries of "Shame!"]
§ * MR. SPEAKER"Shame" and "Pigott" are very disorderly cries, and must not be repeated.
§ MR. DALZIELSurely the hon. Gentleman is not only entitled to withdraw, but to make an apology to me. [Cheers and "Name!"]
§ MR. DALZIELI do not think it is necessary for me to defend myself in this House. I have not had any communication with a rival company. I know there is a rival company, but I do not think I ought to insult the House by replying to the insolent and unfounded remark of the Attorney General. [Cheers, and loud cries of "Apologise!"]
THE ATTORNEY GENERALIf the hon. Member thinks any apology is necessary, I make it. I made the observation on the spur of the moment, and I withdraw it unreservedly.
§ * THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcontinuing his speech, said, that he understood the view of the hon. Member for Somersetshire to be that he would not sanction expenditure on light railways in Ireland or Scotland until the same measure was applied to England.
§ * MR. STRACHEYsaid, that Parliament ought to settle once for all whether the principle of State aid for light rail- 1109 ways was to be applied to every part of the United Kingdom; until that was finally settled he should object to further grants to Ireland and any grant to Scotland.
§ * THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in his view all parts of the United Kingdom should be treated equally in this matter. If there were cases in England where assistance of this kind was as much wanted, as it had been in the past in Ireland, and as it was now in Scotland, he ventured to say that England also ought to have it. This was, he believed, the second proposal of the kind relating to the Highlands; if it was stopped it might be doubtful whether any similar proposal would be made in the future, and the hon. Member would have absolutely put an end to the policy he desired to see carried out. He might fairly appeal to the hon. Member, who knew the great advantages Ireland had received from this policy, not to grudge the extension of it to a part of Great Britain where such assistance was equally necessary, and where, without it, rapid communication with markets could not possibly be had.
MR. T. M. HEALY,referring to the expression used by the Attorney-General, said that, although electoral corruption was not imputed, it involved something which had only to be underlined by that great officer of State—
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! That incident is closed, and must not be reopened.
MR. T. M. HEALYI venture to do what I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have done; I wish to express my profound regret that the observation should have been made. On other occasions, perhaps, outside this House, we shall have an opportunity of expressing our appreciation of the incident. It is closed, as you have ruled, in this House; but it is not closed —
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is contravening my ruling.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he received his private liberty outside the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had repudiated the suggestion of electoral corruption; the hon. Member, if he could rise again, would repudiate it with equal warmth; and the House would have accepted that repudiation. He agreed that this was a liberal offer that had been made; and it was a better offer than had ever been made to Ireland. The Irish had to find an original 5 per cent. guarantee out of their own pocket, and the Treasury came to their aid six months afterwards with a 2 per cent. guarantee. The right hon. Gentleman had not alluded to one matter arising out of the fact that we were at the end of a Session. This was, he believed, the second proposal of the kind with regard to the Highlands; and, if the hon. Member stopped it, it was doubtful whether any such proposal would be made in the future, and thus the hon. Member would absolutely defeat the policy he desired to promote. He thought he might fairly appeal to the hon. Member, knowing how great were the advantages Ireland had received from this policy, not to grudge extension of it to a part of Great Britain where such assistance was equally needed, where, without it, communication with markets could not be had.
§ MR. LOUGHsaid, that it was not the fault of the Opposition if they were forced to discusss this matter at that hour of the morning. The fault rested with the Government for compelling them to do so. He regretted that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had imported unnecessary heat into the discussion. He could not accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Ireland was indebted to that House for having introduced light railways into that country. He thought that those railways had not been placed upon a sound financial basis, and that no care had been taken in their construction, 1111 which had been unduly hurried on. The lines had been constructed under the conditions of a large free grant, and a guarantee of high interest.
§ MR. WEIRsaid, that he rose to appeal to the hon. Gentleman below him to withdraw his opposition to this measure. It had been urged against the measure that it would be good for the landlords only, but, as a matter of fact, it would benefit the people of the Highlands still more. It would do a great deal for the poor crofters and fishermen, and it would, therefore, ill become Radical Members to oppose its construction. He did not mind from whom they got legislation—Conservative or Liberal—provided that the legislation were good. [Ministerial cheers.] He believed that this railway would be a great solace to the Highland people, and he again appealed to his hon. Friend, the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Dalziel) to abandon his opposition. [Renewed Ministerial cheers.]
* MR. J. McLEOD (Sutherland)de-sired to associate himself with his hon. Friend, the Member for Kirkcaldy, in this matter. ("Hear, hear!") He believed that this was a put-up job by landlords in the particular locality. ["Oh!"] He objected to this money being advanced to a private corporation, with practically no guarantee whatever that the line would ever be worked in any particular way so as to benefit the particular locality. Under these circumstances, he was entirely opposed to the Bill being brought in at the fag-end of the Session. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 13.—(Division List, No! 32.)
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Hanbury; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill No. 4.]