§ * MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN (Cork)said he wished to call the attention of the House to the question of transit and railway rates in Ireland; and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, excessive railway rates and defective transit facilities generally constitute a serious bar to the material advancement of Ireland, and should receive immediate attention from the Government." It was a mere truism to say that the railway system of Ireland could, and ought to, help powerfully towards facilitating and developing the prosperity and trade of that country. But he regretted to say that at no time had that railway system been a help. On the contrary it had always been a great hindrance to trade in Ireland. So oppressive, indeed, had it been, that it had made the development of trade in that country impossible. The following figures showed very briefly how railway travelling was discouraged in Ireland, as compared with England and Scotland. In 1880 the average Irish railway rates were higher by 21.83 per cent. than the English, and 27.13 per cent. above the Scotch; in 1890 they were 22.75 per cent. above the English, 29.22 per cent. above the Scotch; in 1900 they were 37.14 per cent. above the English, and 33.97 per cent. above the Scotch. On 15th April, 1902, Mr. Wyndham, who was then Chief Secretary, acknowledged the correctness of these figures. Now, a striking result of these excessive 808 rates charged by the Irish railways was, that while in England each inhabitant made on an average twenty-three journeys yearly, and in Scotland each inhabitant made on an average fifteen journeys per annum, in Ireland the average was only four. If he were to stop here, he should say that he had already made a strong case against the manangement of the railway system in Ireland. But he would proceed. The rates charged by Irish railways on agricultural produce were three-half-pence per ton per mile; on the Continent they were a halfpenny, and in the United States and Canada they were one farthing per ton per mile. He found that the French flax spinners and manufacturers could send their goods from Lille to London for 28s. 9d. per ton, while the Irish flax-spinners and manufacturers had to pay from Belfast to London 42s. 6d. per ton, from Stranorlar to Belfast (86 miles) the rate was 21s. 8d.; but from Ghent, via Goole, Hull or Leith, to Belfast, the rate was 18s. 8d. In Ireland ten barrels of petroleum were carried fifty miles at the same cost as fifteen barrels were carried from New York to Belfast, or to any other Irish port. Sheep were carried fro in Boston, Mass., to Liverpool or Manchester for 2s. 6d. per head, while from Ireland to Liverpool or Manchester the rate was 4s. per head. A Galway distiller for several years bought annually 1,000 tons of barley, grown in the valley of the Shannon. It was shipped on canal, at various points, for Ballinasloe and thence by railway to Galway. The railway company gave notice of higher charges, and the result was that the distiller now got his barley from Glasgow. A company in county Sligo started pressing peat into bricks for fuel. The place was 150 miles from Dublin or Belfast, and the industry was killed by a railway rate of l1s. per ton. On German lines the rate for that article would not exceed 7s. 3d. per ton for any distance. He must refer to the case of eggs recently noticed in 809 the papers. Eggs were carried from Normandy to London, Birmingham, and Nottingham for 16s. 8d. per ton, from Russia the charge was 22s., from Denmark 24s., while the rate from Galway to the same towns was 94s. per ton, or nearly six times the rate from Normandy. As to transit facilities, an egg merchant in Leigh, near Manchester, writing on 16th February of this year, said that eggs from Claremorris were often nine days in transit. Bone dust for manure was carried in England 120 miles per five tons for 25s.; in Ireland the cost of carriage for twenty miles of the same weight was 20s., or nearly five times as much. In fact, goods were sent to all parts of Ireland from England, the European continent, and America cheaper than goods produced in Ireland were sent to different parts of the same country. The Irish railways gave a preference to goods from foreign countries over Irish goods.
Coming to passenger fares, they knew that the minimum rate in Ireland was a penny per mile per 3rd class passenger. In Prussia the rates were by express trains at forty-four miles an hour, 1st class 1.70d; 2nd class 1.25d; 3rd class 0.88d. On ordinary trains, which ran twenty-five miles an hour, the charges were, 1st class l½d., 2nd class l⅛d., 3rd class ¾d., and 4th class ⅜d. per mile. In the same country 4th class return tickets, available for forty-five days, were issued at one farthing per mile, while civil servants, soldiers, and sailors were carried free. If one member of a family took a season ticket at full price, all the other members of the family could get tickets, not necessarily for the same journey or the same class, at half price. This system had naturally created enormous traffic into the large towns. All kinds of facilities and encouragements were given to the public with the very best results, as the following figures showed. In Prussia the railways were State property. In 1899 the total debt on these railways was £370,000,000; and there had been paid off, since 1882, £146,000,000. The profits from 1889 to 1899, inclusive, were £302,000,000. Twenty-one directors managed 21,174 miles of railway, and in 1900 they made a profit of £34,000,000 as against £18,000,000 in 1898. The profit, in fact, had nearly doubled in two years. 810 What a lesson for poor Ireland! In Hungary one could travel 400 miles for 8s; an equal mileage in Ireland cost 33s. 4d. In Austria one could travel ten miles for 6d., 24 miles for 1s., 50 miles for 2s. 6d., 112 miles for 5s., and 180 miles for 7s. 6d.; but in Ireland the lowest charge for 180 miles would be at least 15s. Now he thought he had said enough to justify the terms of his Motion. There were about 3,000 miles of Irish railways managed by a number of directors, variously stated at 135, 169, and 303. He did not know how many separate lines there were, but the number of secretaries stood at ninety-seven, and there were other highly -paid officials, such as solicitors, actuaries, &c, to the number of sixty. Then, each line had a full staff of all kinds, and in the Clearing House, Kildare Street, Dublin, there were 128 clerks. Again, each line had its own rolling stock. What an awful waste was here! But this money waste was not the whole of it. If they compared the Irish lines with the Prussian, which had a mileage of 21,174 miles, they found the latter managed by twenty-one directors; while some English lines, which had a mileage of about 3,000 miles, were managed by one board of some fifteen to twenty directors and one staff. Surely there was something rotten in the State of Denmark so far as Ireland was concerned. These various Irish boards of directors, as might easily be conceived, had no idea of working their lines harmoniously for the good of the country. Indeed, the way in which they had been accustomed to antagonise each other had long been notorious. He, himself, had had experience of it some time ago. He had to travel over the Midland system, and wanted to connect with the Great Southern and Western system at Athlone, and found that the train on the latter system was timed to start from Athlone just two minutes before the other was due. Now, he asked, could any language be strong enough to condemn a system of railway management which, in the poorest country in Europe, charged goods rates 37 per cent. higher than the average English rates, 34 percent, higher than the Scotch rates, 200 per cent. higher than the Continental rates, and 500 per cent. higher than the United States of America and Canadian rates. The 811 Irish railway system offered inducements and facilities to producers from all parts of the world to compete on Irish soil with Irish manufacturers on terms favourable to the foreigner. It was oppressive to the Irishman, and handicapped the Irish producer by excessive rates to his principal market. England.
A remedy for such a state of affairs naturally suggested itself, and that was to amalgamate all the railways in Ireland under one common board. The Board of Trade could easily formulate a scheme under which this common board should work' all the lines for the benefit of the trade and prosperity of the whole country. And as the scheme would greatly benefit Ireland, that country might fairly be asked to guarantee present incomes to the companies. It is needless to say that the Government should be represented on such a board. In the Irish Parliament, as it existed in 1782 to 1800, the interests of Ireland were looked after, and under the fostering care of that native Parliament, unreformed though it was, and in which only the Protestant minority was represented—even under such a Parliament the trade and prosperity of Ireland made wonderful progress, from which he thought it was safe to conclude that if Ireland were now endowed with a native Legislature they would promptly settle this railway question and the other questions that had so long hampered, distracted, and impoverished their country. This question of Irish railway transit and rates had frequently been before this House. In 1844, Mr. Gladstone suggested to a Commission that—
At any time after twenty-one years the railways could be acquired at twenty-five years purchase of the average dividends of the three preceding years.In 1868, he found that seventy-two Irish Peers and ninety Irish Members of Parliament asked for—A general board of management, with a view to reduce expenses;andFor a general and uniform tariff for goods and passengers.They also proposed that any loss arising therefrom should be borne by Ireland alone. In 1874 the right hon. Member for West Bristol, then Chief Secretary for 812 Ireland, on a Motion for the purchase of Irish railways, expressed, on behalf of the Government, willingness to give financial assistance to the companies in consideration of amalgamation. On the 30th April, 1901, the present Chief Secretary, on a Motion regarding Irish railway rates and charges, said—There is another difficulty showing how closely social questions are interlocked in Ireland. That is the difficulty of obtaining a properly trained staff for any large Government department without appearing to ignore the claims of Irishmen. The question of Irish railways is interlocked with that of Irish education, and if you do not make progress with Irish education you cannot find the technically trained men for the administration of Irish railways.Yet, only a few days ago, the same right hon. Gentleman, on the question of University education, banged the door of higher education in their face. Eight years ago the present Prime Minister, then Chief Secretary, used almost the same language; but neither would help the people of Ireland to that education so necessary, as they acknowledged. Who could wonder at their constant protest against this prolonged and cruel injustice. He begged to move the Motion standing in his name.
§ MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)said he wished to second the Motion proposed by his hon. friend in so admirable a speech, which showed the care and exactitude with which his hon. friend always discharged any public duty committed to him. He did not think any one interested in Ireland could look with satisfaction at the railway system of that country, or the way in which the lines were worked. In the first instance, in a poor country, it was necessary and desirable to have narrow gauge railways, but in Ireland the gauge was very much wider than in this country, necessitating larger cuttings, embankments, and tunnelling, and entailing a great deal of unnecessary expense. His hon. friend had shown conclusively that though Ireland was the poorest country in Europe, its railway rates were about the highest. They had heard a great deal about the dumping, due to preferential rates and tariffs, which took place in this country; but in Ireland, which traded more with the British Empire than with 813 foreign countries, the rates which prevailed were a great inducement to (lumping. So great was the difference between local rates and through rates that he was informed that it was more economical for manufacturers who wished to send their goods to some place in Ireland to send them first over to England, and then back to Ireland in place of sending them direct. The late Mr. McCann, whose loss they all deplored, said that unless the railway rates in Ireland were reduced 50 per cent. there was little or no hope for Ireland. He maintained that if this reduction took place, although at first there would he a certain loss to the shareholders, in the long run it would be economical, double if not treble the traffic would be secured, and there would consequently be the greatest good to the country. Some of the directors were Irishmen, and some were not, but at any rate they were men who were selected as a rule from the loyal minority in Ireland, and they were people unsympathetic towards Irishmen and Irish interests in general, and certainly not 2 per cent. of them would obtain any public position in the gift of the people. But these men managed the railways of the country with little or no regard to the interest of the country. It was absolutely necessary if there was to be any good done in this matter in Ireland that the control of the railways should be placed under some central body. His hon. friend had shown the enormous advantage which the German people derived from the system prevailing in that country. The figures submitted showed that it was a system which was not only for the industrial advantage of the country, but that the Government were enabled to make an enormous sum by which to lighten the general taxation. He knew that some of his hon. friends thought that the remedy was to hand over the railways to State control, and in regard to that proposal he would say that whatever happened they could not be worked very much worse than they were at present.
He would give an instance of the utter indifference of the directors in Ireland to the comfort of the people who travelled over their systems. Their carriages were particularly uncomfortable, and, only 814 within the last few years, any servant on the Great Southern and Western Railway who ventured to put a foot-warmer into a third class carriage was liable to dismissal. They could hardly imagine such a thing possible, but he could vouch for the accuracy of the statement because he had personal experience himself of that matter. Although the system was bad at present, he would for his part hesitate long before he would put the control of the Irish railways into the hands of an essentially Government department. A sort of compromise was suggested by his hon. friend, namely, a Board nominated partly from the existing directors and partly by the local traders. So far as Government Boards were concerned Irish Members knew from experience that they were packed by men of anti-Irish feeling who did not command the confidence of the people, and for his own part he thought it would be a mistake to increase the number of these Boards, which would do little or no good to Ireland. His hon. friend the Member for Roscommon introduced this matter in 1901, and on that occasion he reminded the Chief Secretary that a deputation of a most influential character waited on him some months before and asked him whether something could not be done to remedy the state of things. The deputation suggested that a Vice-regal Commission should be appointed to inquire. When that point was raised in the House of Commons the right hon. Gentleman said that a new department had been formed, and that, as some powers had been conferred on it, it would only be reasonable to give them an opportunity of using those powers, and seeing what could be done in the matter. That was three years since, and although he did not wish to describe this as chicanery, he would say that he believed that the Treasury was largely at the bottom of the standstill in this matter, and that the department of which Sir Horace Plunkett was vice-chairman really had no power to take action in the matter. He hoped that, in his reply, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some assurance that he was alive to the grave interests involved in this question. They heard very much of the resuscitation of Irish industries, and so forth, but he did not 815 think they could have a proper resuscitation of them until this question was grappled with, and until traders and manufacturers in Ireland had an opportunity of competing, at any rate, on an even footing with other manufacturers. At present they were handicapped in the way he had described. He begged to second the Motion.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, excessive railway rates and defective transit facilities generally constitute a serious bar to the material advancement of Ireland, and should receive immediate attention from the Government."—(Mr. Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien.)
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)said his hon. friend had referred to the statement of the Chief Secretary in 1901 that the newly-formed department should be given facilities for dealing with this and cognate questions. That raised a very important question, because that department, so far at any rate as this question was concerned, and as regarded Irish industrial life, seemed to have retrograded rather than progressed. He found that the Reports of 1902 and 1903 were more full and explicit, and showed a greater desire to deal with the question of railways in Ireland, than the Report presented yesterday. That was rather a regrettable fact. He might be allowed to express regret that the right hon. Gentleman who was vice-chairman of the board was not here to explain the inaction of the department. He was not going to censure the Agricultural Department in this matter at undue length. He believed that in regard to technical instruction they had done useful work, which had been largely supplemented by the work done by the county councils and various local bodies throughout Ireland. But with regard to the all-important question of transit and railway rates he did complain, not in a spirit of bitterness, but of disappointment, that a department which ought to have been the champion and custodian of these particular interests, had really largely neglected the work which was one of the most important features of the work committed to its care. The department might have done much more 816 in two or three respects, and first of all by taking up the complaints of traders and manufacturers with regard to the deficiency of transit. It would be obvious to every business man in the House that an ordinary Member of this House or a trader or manufacturer suffered under this disadvantage. Grievances with respect to unfair charges and want of proper facilities were brought forward, but no Member of the House, and no body of Members, had the facilities for getting hold of information that a public department gave. He thought the Board of Agriculture and Technical Education might have continued their labours of 1901, and gathered from agricultural societies. chambers of commerce and shipping, any amount of information, without which it was difficult for any private Member of the House to establish a case. They all knew the general grievances, but when they complained they were confronted with the answer by the President of the Board of Trade that they should bring forward explicit cases. When such cases had been brought forward they had never found the President of the Board of Trade very sympathetic with Ireland in regard to these matters. The Board of Agriculture had neglected their duty in this matter. They should have supplied information to the Board of Trade. They could have helped in the bringing forward of specific instances with regard to the inequality of rates. It was almost impossible for a private Member to get the figures to enable him to make comparisons between the rates charged in Ireland and those in England and Scotland, and also between the charges made by shipping companies whose vessels plied between this country and foreign parts and those plying to Ireland. He marvelled at the industry of his friend the Member for Cork, who had brought forward such a mass of information. He said advisedly, and without any desire to censure the Board of Agriculture unfairly, that the return just issued by that department was absolutely valueless for the purpose of this debate. He found from a previous return that in 1890 the average rate per ton for merchandise in Ireland was as much as 27.14 per cent. in excess of the rate charged for the same traffic in 817 England, and further the average rate per ton for merchandise in 1900 was higher by nearly 2 per cent. than in 1890. They were therefore confronted with this fact, that while the average rates for merchandise in England had been decreasing, they had been increasing very considerably in Ireland. That was an alarming state of things which deserved the consideration of the Government. In the last reliable Return which was available, it was shown that the average rate for merchandise in Ireland was 37.14 per cent. in excess of the English and 34 per cent. in excess of the Scotch average. These were very disquieting figures. They asked for something more from the Chief Secretary than an academic or a mere finely phrased expression of sympathy. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to point to something in the way of practical work. Unfortunately, in regard to this important question they seemed to be retrograding. They wanted a simpler and more centralised system of management, and he hoped they would have a definite pledge from the Chief Secretary that he would take this matter into his serious consideration at the earliest possible moment.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. WYNDHAM,) Doversaid the subject which the hon. Member for Cork City had brought under consideration was not only of particular interest to Ireland but also of very general interest. Questions of transit were beginning to loom very large, and they were likely to loom larger in the future. The hon. Member for Cork City, who moved this Resolution, made an interesting speech and cited a number of statistics, but he would hardly expect him to deal seriatim with all his figures. Certain criticisms, however, of a general character occurred to him. There were certain points which he thought the hon. Member did not take sufficiently into account, such as the difference between through rates by land and sea, and rates for short distances. Then, too, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that in most countries abroad the railways were owned by the Government, and were run almost at cost price. The hon. Member for East Waterford, who seconded the Resolution, referred to 818 a speech which he had made three years ago in the House, and in which he said the question of improving the transit facilities of Ireland was one which depended upon a settlement of the land question and the education question. He had done all he could to lay the foundation of that settlement. Without doubt, men in Ireland of humble origin had not the opportunities in regard to education as men in England, or as men in Scotland. The hon. Member opposite had asked for some assurances that the Government were alive to the great interests at stake. The hon. Member for Cork had also referred to the Report of the department for 1902–3, which he had described as meagre, and he alluded to the difference between the rates obtaining on the railways in Ireland and in other countries. But the hon. Member opposite was dealing with figures for general merchandise, which included iron ore and material of that kind, which was carried long distances, and there was very little indeed of that from Ireland; therefore that comparison was somewhat fallacious. Of course, that did not make it any more agreeable to Irishmen, when they were presented with the difficulty of getting satisfactory rates for the agricultural produce of small farmers upon a railway system for comparatively small consignments. In spite of the critical and pessimistic tone of the speeches to which they had just listened, he regarded the Resolution as rather an incentive to the Government to proceed with greater energy on the lines that were already being followed than a censure on the Government for not adopting other lines of a totally different character. Even if that were not so, he would make bold to answer that they were doing what they could.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)It is the same story from all English Governments.
§ * MR. WYNDHAM, continuing, said that in the Resolution there was very little to which exception could be taken. It was alleged, and truly, that transit facilities in Ireland were defective. The epithet "excessive" applied to the charges was ambiguous. From the point 819 of view of the producer they were excessive, but from the point of view of the railway shareholder it would be difficult, almost impossible, to reduce these charges unless they were in a position to enforce drastic remedies. Were they in such a position? Take the proposal that railways in Ireland should be nationalised in some form or other. Without entering into the political or economic merits or demerits of such a plan, it might very well be held that Parliament would have been well advised to accept the proposition of the Royal Commission fifty years ago, that in the conditions of Ireland, so different from those of England, railways could be promoted with better results by the State than by private enterprise. That advice, however, was not taken, although not altogether repudiated, because construction had been assisted, and in the course or the last ten years there had been free grants for assistance of transit in Ireland amounting to £1,349,000. So something had been done by the State. But the recommendation of the Royal Commission was outside the sphere of practical politics now. After the advance of £100,000,000 for the purchase of Irish land he would be giving encouragement to false hopes if he were to say any word that would lead hon. Members to believe that he saw his way in the near future to an advance of £49,000,000 or £50,000,000 for the purchase of Irish railways. In the same way he would, in existing circumstances, put on one side the idea that the State could enforce amalgamation of railways in Ireland and lay down a conventional rate at a lower figure than those which now obtained and recoup those who had invested in these companies by a practical guarantee. That also was outside the sphere of practical politics. If that could not be done, for finance was a hard taskmaster, as they all knew—if heroic measures were out of the question—they should refrain from taking any action or using any language which might seem to threaten measures which they were not in a position to take up. The capital of the Irish railways was much less than that of English railways. Their receipts per mile were about one-fourth of the receipts of the English 820 railways, and they were not in a condition to show very great enterprise unless they received encouragement rather than discouragement from that House. It was true that there were a number of lines in Ireland, but the point of fundamental importance was that they were very short lines. The Irish railways were not comparable to those in England, the total mileage of the Irish lines, including light railways and all railways built by the Government, was very little more than that of the Great Western Railway of England. Everybody would allow that this made it hard to run the railways cheaply and to give very low rates. There were difficulties also arising from the weight, size, and shape of consignments, and it was not possible to have an organisation for the collection of produce such as existed in England and, in a nearer approach to perfection, in America. Amalgamation had been tried by voluntary effort, and, though it had been attended with some local disappointments, on the whole it was a sound policy to pursue, and by it difficulties of haulage would be reduced.
Those being the difficulties, what action had the Government taken? He wished to consider this question from the points of view of rates, nature of consignments, and difficulties of collection. As far as the rates were concerned Irish railways were controlled by the same public Acts as controlled railway rates in Great Britain, namely, the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts of 1888 and 1894 and the Railway Rates and Charges Act of 1892. The new department of agriculture and technical instruction had taken action under those Acts repeatedly, and although they did not always succeed it must not be supposed that nothing was done. Representations were made and suggestions were offered which had sometimes been adopted, and the new department had special powers such as were not enjoyed by a department in England; it had power to prosecute inquiries and to act as complainant before the Railway Commissioners, and to charge the expenses to the public account. Complaint had been made of the meagre character of the reports 821 issued, but it would be understood that the hon. Member who made the complaint was alluding to what was a mere summary of action of the Department. It 'was true that only in one case in 1902 did the Department bring this matter to a trial but in that case they were successful. There were, however, a number of cases where their representations had resulted in a reduction of the rates. It was very dull to read statistics, but with the permission of the House he would quote some cases in which reductions were obtained as the result of friendly correspondence with the companies concerned. For example, the Great Southern and Western Railway reduced butter rates from county Kilkenny to Belfast from 40s. to 35s. per ton and from Newcastle West to Liverpool from 32s. 6d. to 30s. a ton. The Midland Company reduced their rates on maize between Dublin and Castlerea from l1s. 6d. to 9s. 4d. per ton. and like reductions were made from other stations on their system. The Great Northern Company reduced their rates for apples and pears from Annaghmore to Londonderry from 15s. to 13s. 4d. per ton, for strawberries to Belfast from 12s. 6d. to l1s. 4d. per ton, and to Dublin from 1s. 6d. to 1s. 3d. per cwt. Fruit growing in the North of Ireland was a very important industry, and it was above all things necessary that such industries should get a fair chance, and it was in cases like this that the new Department could intervene with advantage. He admitted that Irish railways were somewhat timid in regard to initiative, but this new Department brought facts before the railway companies which were not previously within their knowledge, and when they had been able to convince the companies that certain kinds of produce could be put upon the market at a profit then the rates were reduced. It was difficult to make an impression by reading out long lists of statistics, but the figures he had before him did not deal simply with dairy produce and fruit alone. He had some figures with regard to live-stock which were of great importance. The Great Southern Company reduced their rates for the conveyance of horses from Patrickswell to Dublin from 84s. 4d. for 822 four horses to 78s. 3d. Several lists of rates for the carriage of Irish and Continental produce were in the hands of the departmental transit inspectors but they had not yet been classified.
He wanted to come to the question of the collection of agricultural produce, and he must take note of the criticism which had been passed on Irish railways for giving undue preference to the foreign producer. That was a matter of such importance that if the House would bear with him he would quote some figures upon this point. He would give two instances dealing with butter. These rates were, from Limerick to Manchester. 37s. 6d. per ton; from Copenhagen to Manchester, 47s.; from Gothenburg to Manchester, 47s.; from Montreal to Manchester, 45s. 6d. per Ship Canal; from Enniskillen to Manchester. 45s.: from Hamburg to Manchester. 46s. 8d.: from Rotterdam to Manchester. 40s.; from Sligo to Manchester by steamer 35s. 10d., by Irish rail 40s. a ton. The rates on butter to Birmingham are from Cloughjordan, Tipperary, 48s. 4d. a ton; from Kenmare; 36s. 8d. via Cork, 40s.; via Dublin from Sligo, 43s. 4d.; by steamer and by Irish rail, 48s. 4d: from Hamburg,42s. 6d.; Rotterdam, 39s. l1d.; Esbjerg, Denmark, 38s. 6d. The rates to Glasgow from Kenmare are 35s. l0d.; Cork route, 40s. l0d.; Dublin route from Buttevant, 30s.; via Cork. 34s. 2d.; via Dublin from Enniskillen, 28s. 4d.; from Clones, 30s.: from Hamburg, 50s.; from Rotterdam, 49s.; Esbjerg. Denmark. 45s. Besides these amounts, additional sums varying from 1s. 6d. to 7s. per ton had to be paid for the carriage of the butter by rail from the interior of Denmark to the port of shipment. Of course in Denmark the railways were owned by the Government, and the goods were carried almost at cost price. In regard to eggs, he would take the transit of eggs from a number of Irish centres, and make a comparison. The foreign rates are from the port of shipment, and therefore the comparison was more favourable. From Limerick to Manchester the rates were 43s. 4d. per ton; from Listowel to Manchester, 50s. per ton; Sligo, 40s., Kenmare, 45s. 10d., Hamburg, 48s. 4d., Rotterdam, 41s. 4d., and Copenhagen, 48s. 6d. From Ballyhaunis to London, 823 the rates were 65s.; from Kenmare to London, 50s. 10d.; from Sligo, 56s. 8d.; and from Copenhagen, 50s. Would anybody say from those figures that there was preferential treatment in favour of foreign countries when these rates did not include a single penny for the cost of transit upon Continental railways. He would be happy to supply hon. Members with further figures, and agreed that it would be well, perhaps, to bring out a paper giving a long schedule of these important rates. Through rates were of advantage to the places which obtained them, and although other places might feel that they did not share in the advantages, it was to the general advantage of Ireland that there should be such through rates. He trusted that they would increase in Ireland and England, and increase not only as between Ireland and England, but between the United Kingdom and our colonies, especially Canada. He was not going into the tariff question, but he was suggesting that they could not look upon the economic problem in Ireland, in a wayside district deprived of the advantage of through rates, isolated from the question that free land was given by the Canadian Government to the farmers, that their produce was carried by Government railways or by private railways with a Government guarantee against loss. The subject was so intricate that it might lead him into the vista of speculation, from which he intended to refrain.
When hon. Members complained that through rates had not given as great advantages to country districts as they had to towns along the main line, he asked them to take the larger questions into consideration and remember that, on the whole, in view of the short haulage of the Irish railways, it was to the advantage of Ireland that there should he through traffic arrangements, and in his opinion it would be to the advantage of the United Kingdom if such through arrangements could be carried even further. Another sphere of activity of the Department was an important one. Instruction was given by the Department to Irish farmers not only in the cultivation of produce but in the best methods of presenting their goods in an acceptable shape 824 for the market. This instruction had been of enormous value, because it enabled the farmers to know the form, size, and the weight of parcels which could be carried at cheap rates. The Department had taken up many complaints, and it was found that in many instances the cause of the high charge for articles which were put on the railway was due to the fact that they were in weights of less than 3 cwt. or sent by passenger trains when goods trains might have served. There was great need for an organised effort in the direction of teaching the producer how to put up his produce as a collecting consignment and more attractive for handling by the railway companies. Since there was no practical chance of adopting heroic measures, the Department did: their best to push along all those three roads—keeping a jealous eye on the Irish railways; investigating the markets of Great Britain and the Continent; and teaching the Irish farmer to cultivate better. The farmer was grateful for the instruction given to him in the way of consignment in size and weight, and by seeing what could be done to collect such consigments and place them on the rail-head in a convenient form.
That led him to ask the House to consider the efforts made by two distinguished Irishmen, Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie, to assist in this third feature in the problem, namely, the proper methods for collecting produce and placing them upon the Irish railways. He would deal with this question as briefly as he could. The problem connected with the proper methods of collecting produce and placing it on the Irish railways had been harder than might at first sight be supposed to be the case. The idea of Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie was not to spread over the face of Ireland an enormous system of motor traction, but to find out the districts where the experiment of applying motor traction could be made and, if it succeeded, extend its application. Accordingly they mapped out Ireland into three sections, and selected men from amongst the pick of their staffs to investigate them. He felt it his duty to place at their disposal the staffs of all the Irish Departments, where they were needed, and, in addition, everywhere the Commissioners went they were met by the county councils. Altogether seventeen 825 experimental districts, covering 363 miles, were surveyed and investigated. He would not go into all the details of the very interesting general Report which was drawn up by the Commission, which gave a detailed report upon each one of the seventeen routes, and which Lord Iveagh was good enough to submit to him for his observation, but certain questions arose which had to be dealt with. He would, if the House would allow him, deal with one or two of those problems. In the first place the Commissioners said that during the course of this inquiry they had been compelled to leave unvisited many districts which seemed to them worthy of attention. The hon. Member for East Clare must not be disappointed if the districts reported upon did not include some of the places in his constituency.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)I am used to disappointments.
§ * MR. WYNDHAMsaid the Commission proceeded upon purely business lines and they were very anxious that their first effort should be crowned with success. Everywhere not only the county councils, but the local priests, clergymen, and doctors were in favour of the scheme; but some of the difficulties to be surmounted lay in the habits of the people. One was the idle and desultory practice of cartage, by which a farmer having his own horse and cart was content to occupy two days over 15 or 20 miles. These men thought only of the fact that they spent no money in the transaction, taking no account whatever of the loss of the two days; and, when it was suggested that payment should be made for an organised service, they were inclined to say, "I can take my own cart, in my own time, in my own way." But the people were being brought to see that that was not a sound economical method. The cardinal difficulties, however, in the application of a system of motor traction in Ireland were two—first, the speed limit and the weight of the motor and trailer; and secondly, the condition of the roads. As President of the Local Government Board he had endeavoured to meet Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie to the utmost length; and he was prepared to increase the speed limit to 10 miles—which they 826 had asked for—and to increase the weight of the motor to 4 tons, and the trailer to 1½ tons; but that must be subject to the approval of the county councils. Some of the county councils, while showing the greatest willingness to meet the promoters of the enterprise in every way, were disposed to object to the weight of the motor and trailer. All the counties of Ireland, except five—Antrim, Kerry, Donegal, Meath, and Kildare—had accepted the three-ton engine, the 18 cwt. trailer, and a speed of 10 miles an hour, subject to the condition that the wheels did not track in the same line, and were of a minimum breadth of 4½ in. Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie assented to this, and as a matter of fact the width of the wheels would be greater. It had been suggested that in order to meet the question of roads there should be a certificate of the county surveyer, viséd by the Local Government Board, to the effect that the road was fit to bear such a weight travelling at such a speed. He did not believe there would be any difficulty about that at all; the Commissioners had travelled round the country with the county surveyors, and there was no intention of doing anything in the matter except in close co-operation with the county councils of Ireland. If there were any reconstruction it would be limited to comparatively short lengths of road. The roads of Ireland were as a whole good roads and the population was sparse, and in many districts the rate of speed would not be a low one. There were portions of the roads which ought to be strengthened if such weights were put on them, and for the reconstruction of such portions of the roads the Local Government Board would be prepared to lend money on very easy terms. He felt that he ought not to develop this at greater length, but he wished to say that all that had come before the promoters of this scheme encouraged them to proceed with it, and they felt that apart from the carriage of produce, which had been more immediately considered, that there was a prospect of carrying live-stock, and at a later date passengers. But, in the first instance, the problem was to carry agricultural produce which had to be collected on reasonable terms.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the Chief Secretary could give them a list of the seventeen routes, and whether he would leave the means of communication at present in existence in certain districts, as they were until the motor system was introduced.
§ * MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would give a list of the districts. He would not give the whole of the seventeen routes originally contemplated because some of them had been rejected, but he would give a list showing where they were now. One effect of this scheme had been that the railway companies already had begun to take up the idea themselves, and certain routes which they had been examining had been taken up by the railway companies. This was the case in respect of 32½ miles of the route in the North East of Ireland and the railway company were now working 35½ miles at Newtowards-Portaffery by motor traffic. There were 20 miles from Derry to Feeny and Park to be worked, and nine miles from Ballymena to Port-Glenone awaiting to be worked. From Newcastle to Kilkeel 13½ miles were now being worked. Now he came to the lines which were sanctioned subject of course to making the neceessary arrangements with the Local Government Board. One of the most important of those, in his opinion, was the route from Ballina to Belmullet. Then there was another from Ballinasloe to Mount Bellew, and another from Galway to Costelloe. One more route which would probably be arranged was 14 miles from Parsonstown to Portumna. Other possible routes included 18½ miles from Portumna to Loughrea, and 15 miles from Enniscorthy to Kilmuckridge. It was very difficult to convey to the House without a map an idea of these arrangements. In all 220 miles of route were either sanctioned or in course of being agreed upon. They were still in the experimental stage. Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie wished to take up districts where the need was great and where success would crown their efforts. But anyone who had attended to the difficulties involved in this problem would agree that really no time had been lost, and that it was better, in a matter of this kind, to proceed slowly and surely than to rush into a more extensive, perhaps more flashy, plan.
828 He had detained the House at very great length and he did not propose to enter into further detail in regard to this scheme of motor traffic. He might point out, however, that transit facilities included something more than railways. They had to look to the canals as well as the harbours of Ireland, and he hoped that by improving the harbours, private enterprise would be stimulated to do something. The offer of one company to allow one of their largest steamers on the West Coast of Ireland to call at any harbour which was made fit to receive their ships was encouraging. He wished to conclude his observations by pointing out that all such efforts necessitated a good deal of negotiation. At this moment he was on the point of concluding negotiations with the great Midland Company in Ireland in respect of one of the harbours, but all this involved a vast amount of detailed examination of roads which hon. Members opposite would scarcely conceive. Again, he was in negotiation with the Great Southern and Western Railway for an arrangement by which the Tralee and Donegal Railway would be put into a proper condition. Those negotiations were not quite concluded, but in view of all the circumstances, he thought they ought rather to encourage than to threaten Irish railway companies at the present time. He thought they ought to continue to enforce the provisions of the Acts o 1888, 1892, and 1894 and make representations to the companies. They ought to secure a reduction of rates wherever possible, and resist any increases in every case, and prevent as far as possible any preference being given to foreign producers. In addition to such efforts they must continue to prosecute investigations as to the condition of the markets, whether in Great Britain or on the Continent, and they must continue to give instruction to the farmers not only as to the best methods of raising produce but as to the best methods of putting it on the market. His experience was that Irish railways were too timid, but he doubted the wisdom of holding vague threats over their heads. On financial grounds it was a difficult question to nationalise the railways of Ireland or give them a State guarantee. Their object should be to get the railway companies 829 to pluck up courage and to take their part, side by side with private enterprise, in that development of Irish agriculture and Irish industry which, though of recent growth, was very real and full of much promise for the future.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)said that at one time it would have been a very easy thing to secure some sort of amalgamation amongst these struggling railways in Ireland which had done so much harm to the country. The right hon. Gentleman had not stated the case quite fairly, for he had said that they complained of preferential rates to foreign countries. He wished to point out that these were not the preferential freights to which Irishmen objected. What they complained of was the preferential rates given to foreign goods brought into Ireland, which could be produced in better quality in Ireland itself, but where there were no facilities at all for cheap transit. If the policy of amalgamation was pursued by the Government in a proper spirit there would be no trouble in solving the difficulties which had been presented to this House. Years ago, when the House of Commons considered how the Irish railways should be built, the Railway Commission recommended that they should be built by the State. In 1837 the British railway promoters thought the whole system of private enterprise was in danger, and so they blocked and destroyed all the efforts of the Royal Commission, and supported this foolish system, which had never met with any success of any kind. Thirty years afterwards there was a Commission which reported in favour of amalgamation, and twenty years later the Allport Commission made a similar Report. This House had proved itself incapable of solving any Irish problem on an Irish basis. It was no use the Chief Secretary for Ireland telling them about motor traffic, for it was time the House put this childish treatment of the Irish question upon one side. He quite shared the disappointment with which the right hon. Gentleman's remarks had been received. He
§ had no objection to the efforts which the Board of Agriculture were making in Ireland, and he did not object to the new effort which was being made by Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie. They belonged to a noble band of Irishmen who were constantly striving to alleviate human suffering, in Ireland, which had been caused by the neglect of the House of Commons. With the greatest respect for those efforts he objected to the House of Commons perpetuating this infamous railway system, which was paralysing every Irish industry. The House ought either to deal with this question, or else let Irishmen deal with it for themselves. The Chief Secretary talked about preparing goods for the market instead of dealing with these admitted evils. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Motion which had been proposed, for that would at any rate be a step forward. The hon. Member opposite had made a strong speech in favour of the nationalisation of Irish railways and The Times newspaper, which was not much prejudiced in favour of Ireland, had also advocated the nationalisation of the Irish railways as an urgent and necessary reform. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would at least accept the Motion.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that as far as railway reform was concerned the right hon. Gentleman's speech must be considered disappointing, although he had listened with very great pleasure to the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had foreshadowed. He only wished to say that, once the suggested scheme was started, it would be impossible to stop with the routes suggested, for routes were also required in a great many other districts which were quite as deserving of better means of communication.
§ Question put:
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes, 121. (Division List No. 13.)
831| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Blake, Edward | Crean, Eugene |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Boland, John | Cremer, William Randal |
| Allen, Charles P. | Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Delany, William |
| Ambrose, Robert | Burke, E. Haviland | Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbt. Henry | Burns, John | Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Caldwell, James | Doogan, P. C. |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Bell, Richard | Causton, Richard Knight | Flynn, James Christopher |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Gilhooly, James | Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) | Roche, John |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Mooney, John J. | Rose, Charles Day |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Morrell, George Herbert | Shackleton, David James |
| Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Murphy, John | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Sheehy, David |
| Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. | Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Jordan, Jeremiah | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Toulmin, George |
| Kilbride, Denis | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Layland-Barratt, Francis | O'Dowd, John | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Leigh, Sir Joseph | O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Levy, Maurice | O'Malley, William | Wilson John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Lough, Thomas | O'Mara, James | Young, Samuel |
| Lundon, W. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Pirie, Duncan V. | |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Power, Patrick Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Reddy, M. | |
| M'Kean, John | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | |
| M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin | Redmond, William (Clare) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Grenfell, William Henry | Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Groves, James Grimble | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry | Newdegate, Francis A. N. |
| Arrol, Sir William | Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Percy, Earl |
| Balcarres, Lord | Heath, A. Howard (Hanley) | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds) | Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. | Pym, C. Guy |
| Bignold, Arthur | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside) | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Hoult, Joseph | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Bond, Edward | Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham) | Renwick, George |
| Brassey, Albert | Hunt, Rowland | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire) | Kerr, John | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Keswick, William | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc | Kimber, Henry | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Coates, Edward Feetham | Knowles, Sir Lees | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.) |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth) | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M. Taggart |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.) | Stock, James Henry |
| Oust, Henry John C. | Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Tuff, Charles |
| Dewar, Sir T. R (Tower Hamlets | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Maconochie, A. W. | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton) |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne) |
| Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Flower, Sir Ernest | Manners, Lord Cecil | Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Forster, Henry William | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Fyler, John Arthur | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. | Wylie, Alexander |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Gardner, Ernest | Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) | |
| Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood, and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets) | Morrison, James Archibald | |
| Goschen, Hn. George Joachim | Mount, William Arthur | |
| Gray, Finest (West Ham) | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |