§ MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury have, in accordance with the undertaking of the First Lord, called up the £93,000 due from the Rosslare Company, or has he had any further reply from that company as to the construction of the Cork and Fermoy Line.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI received a letter yesterday from the chairman of the company stating that he had found it impossible to secure a meeting of the Fishguard Board at this season of the year, but promising to call the Board together at the earliest possible 1177 moment after the vacation. At the same time he asked that, having regard to the length of time during which the company's application of the 18th April was under consideration by the Treasury, some little further time should be allowed for the repayment of the £93,000. I think that this is a reasonable request under the circumstances. I have had no indication of the Fishguard and Rosslare Company's intention in regard to the Fermoy line since the debate in this House on the Great Southern and Western Railway Bill, but I gather from the statement made on that occasion that the company intended to proceed with its construction.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)said the company had violated the condition on which they obtained the money, and he wished to know what reason there was for giving them further indulgence.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI consulted with my right hon. friend the First Lord on the point. The company approached the Treasury on 18th April, and the final reply of the Treasury was not sent until 26th July. That reply stated that the company must adhere to their parliamentary engagement, and the money would be called up if they did not. The chairman represented that that was very short notice, and, in view of the difficulties of getting the Board together at this time of the year, asked for a short postponement. There is no intention of releasing the company from their obligations.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDThe obligation to construct this line has not been fulfilled by the company, and the position now is that they have to return this money. I wish to know whether this postponement of the fulfilment of the obligation in regard to the money means that a further indulgence is to be given to this company.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINHaving regard to the fact that the company's application was under the consideration of the Treasury for three months, and the final reply of the Treasury was only sent to them a few days 1178 before the date on which the money was due, it seems not inequitable to give them a little further time to make this payment.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI think it is quite reasonable that they should get some further time.