§ MR. FLYNN (Cork Co., N.)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is yet in a position to state whether the Great Southern and Western Railway Company have made any communication in regard to the construction of the Cork and Fermoy line under the provisions of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway Act of 1899, and, if not, will the Treasury communicate with the railway company as to their responsibility under the said Act.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINYes, Sir. The Fishguard and Rosslare Company have proposed that the obligation to construct a direct line from Fermoy to Dunkettle should be replaced by an obligation to construct a line at Cork connecting the systems of the Fishguard and Rosslare Company and the Great Southern and Western Company with the systems south-west of Cork. For this purpose fresh Parliamentary powers would be necessary, and in order to give time to take the sense of Parliament upon the proposal, the company have asked that they may be released from their promise to begin the Fermoy line not later than the 31st of this month. They also ask that the Treasury should agree to make the construction of the connecting line at Cork the condition of the application to Parliament for a grant of £93,000 instead of the Fermoy and Dunkettle line. On receipt of these proposals I communicated with the Irish Government, and yesterday I received their reply, which is to 105 the effect that in their opinion the general policy of the proposed change is sound, and that they concur in the company's proposals. Under these circumstances I think that Parliament ought to have an opportunity of considering and either approving or rejecting the suggested change, and I propose to act accordingly.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYAnother breach of faith.
§ MR. FLYNNIs it not a fact that the Treasury gave their sanction to the passing of this Act on the express understanding that the Cork and Fermoy line should be constructed?
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the people of Cork want this line to be made from Fermoy to Cork, and that they supported the proposal by evidence before the Committee? Is it not the case, too, that they do not want this connecting line?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ MR. T. M. HEALYMove the adjournment. This is a national question.
§ MR. FLYNNWill the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to whether the Treasury sanctioned this Act of Parliament on the express condition that the Cork and Fermoy line should be commenced within a given time?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not quite know what the hon. Member means by the Treasury sanctioning the Act of Parliament. They undertook to ask Parliament for a grant of £93,000, and one of the conditions was that the Fermoy and Dunkettle line should be made. The company now wish to exchange that obligation for an obligation to make the connection with the South Western system. The Irish Government think that is on the whole a sound proposal, and they hold that Parliament should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIENMay I ask—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Gentleman has stated that Parlia- 106 ment ought to have an opportunity of expressing its opinion.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIENThat is not the question. Parliament has already had three opportunities of doing so.
§ MR. SPEAKERAnd when the next opportunity arises it will be the proper time to discuss this matter.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by Parliament having an opportunity to consider the matter? What occasion does he propose to give it?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe company cannot be released from their existing obligation without coming to Parliament for fresh powers, and when they come next year—I suppose it must be next year before they can do so—there will then be an opportunity of discussing the matter. Unless Parliament decides that the scheme may be changed, of course, the conditions of the Treasury grant will remain exactly as they are at the present time. I think it is right, and the Treasury think it is right, that Parliament should have an opportunity of considering this question.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYAs the hon. Gentleman has stated that this has been approved by the Irish Government, I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has given his personal approval to this matter?
§ MR. WYNDHAMMy personal approval has nothing to do with this case. As to the question whether this change would be more economical, and more in the interests of Ireland than the other scheme, I have taken the best advice I could, and I think it would be better on the whole.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in thus acting he is overriding the Act of Parliament and the decisions of two Committees?
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIENMay I ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what he thinks of this dirty trick?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIt is the work of the Dublin Castle Freemasons gang.
§ [LATER.]
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware of the momentous statement made by the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the Bill of the Great Southern and Western Company allowing that company to depart from the obligation imposed upon it by statute and by this House when it sanctioned the amalgamation of the Waterford and Limerick Railway? Was a decision of the Cabinet taken on the question?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.I am afraid I was not in the House when the question was put and answered, and therefore I am not in a position to inform the House. I will inquire of my hon. friend, and find out exactly what occurred.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI will put the question to-morrow.