§ *MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (Limerick, W.)said he rose to call attention to the condition of railway and general transit 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 with a view to providing a remedy therefor." He did so with the greatest diffidence, and would have much preferred that the duty of so doing had fallen upon one of his colleagues with greater knowledge of this question than he possessed. He trusted that the debate arising out of the Motion would have greater effect on the Government 122 than previous debates had had, although he was bound to confess he was sceptical about it. No one in Ireland, save, perhaps, the directors and managers of the railways, would deny that a change was required. Royal Commission after Royal Commission had inquired into this matter and had reported in favour of a change, but those Reports had been shelved. They were little better off than they were in 1867, when the Devonshire Commission sat, and when Sir Rowland Hill and the right hon. H. W. Monsell reported in favour of the State purchase of Irish railways. The glaring defects of the transit system from which Ireland now suffered were, first of all, high railway rates. They were higher in Ireland than in any other civilised country in the world. The rates for agricultural produce in Ireland were six farthings per ton per mile; in the United States of America and Canada the rates for the same kind of produce were one farthing, whilst the Continental rates were about two farthings per ton per mile. The rates in Ireland were higher than in England and Scotland. The average rate per ton carried by railways in England, Scotland, and Ireland had been calculated, and the calculation showed that in 1880 the rate in Ireland was 21.83 per cent, above the English and 27.13 per cent, above the Scotch rate. In 1890 it was 22.75 per cent, and 29.22 per cent., and in 1900 37.14 per cent, and 33.97 per cent, above the English and Scotch rates. Was it any wonder that Ireland was not prosperous? Not only was her Parliament taken from her by force and fraud, not only had she a bad land system, but she had the worst transit system in the world. It was a wonder Ireland existed at all.
With regard to preferential rates he complained that the rates given by competing lines operated seriously in the matter of business against neighbouring towns not receiving a preference, and that the through rate given to foreigners gave them also a preference over the home producers. There were too many directors and managers on these railways—there was a director to every ten or twenty miles of railway, and the railways were worked in a narrow spirit with the view of squeezing out big dividends for the shareholders. If the rates were 123 reduced 50 per cent., as was recommended by Mr. Childers' draft Report with regard to the Financial Relations, and the lines worked on a better principle, with the view of promoting and encouraging home industries, he did not think any loss would result to the shareholders, but rather the gain to them eventually would be very great indeed, on account of the increased traffic which undoubtedly would follow, but as he recognised that it would be very difficult for private companies to make a move in that direction without assistance from the State, they would have to look for a remedy elsewhere.
Then in comparison with foreign countries there was great delay and carelessness in transit on the Irish railways when carrying goods and live stock. No provision, for instance, was made for feeding and watering stock, no matter how long they might be detained in the wagons. In America each beast was separated and such provision was made. He also complained of unprotected loading banks for cattle. Those were some of the principal defects in the transit system of Ireland, and it would, in his opinion, be mere waste of time to go further into detail. Since he had been in the House he had frequently asked questions dealing with the transit of butter, tea, and eggs, and the high rates for their carriage and delivery, and he did not propose to cover the same ground again. He would just read what Mr. Mulhall had said in his report on Holland, written for Sir Horace Plunkett's Recess Committee—
The Dutch farmer can send his butter, eggs, and cheese from Groningen to London at a less cost than a Tipperary farmer can send his to Dublin.Then staring them in the face they had the fact that the Canadian beef, New Zealand mutton, and American bacon were not only competing with Ireland in the British market, but the home market as well, and he ventured to say that also was due in a large degree to the high rates on Irish railways. Now-a-days they heard a good deal about preferential treatment for the Colonies, but they heard not a word about justice to Ireland in the matter of transit facilities to enable the people to compete with the foreigner. The reason that foreign rates were so low was that the 124 State took an interest in the railways, which were a national asset. The State either owned them or subsidised and controlled them, so that they ware worked in the interests of the nation. The real remedy for this state of things was either nationalisation of railways and canals in Ireland by State purchase, or by the establishment of a popularly elected railway committee, responsible to Parliament, with large powers, to regulate traffic and to make companies work as one service. Under the existing circumstances he should not think State purchase advisable, though, with an Irish Parliament in existence, he should strongly support it. He was afraid if there was State purchase the profits made would go, like the financial relations money, into the British Exchequer. He, therefore, set aside State purchase. Then there was the proposal of Mr. Charles Smith, which was that the State should aid the railway companies to lower the rates without interfering with the management of the railways by directors, the theory being that the increase of traffic would eventually counter balance any loss which might arise in other ways. But he wished to state clearly that in any change that might take place at any time they did not want to injure the shareholders in any degree. On the contrary, whenever a change took place the Irish Party would see that their interests were safeguarded.So far as the canals and navigable rivers of Ireland were concerned, they were, for the most part, a negligible quantity. It was sad to see the splendid rivers in Ireland flowing idly by to the sea which could be made to play a most important part in the industrial life of Ireland. The Irish railways had killed the canal traffic. In the course of the last debate which took place upon this question they heard a great deal about individual enterprise, and motor traffic and State assistance was more than hinted at. In his constituency a motor service was to run, and the first time the car carrying goods ran it broke down, and they had never heard anything more about it. Such a thing was trifling with this great question. What was wanted was some drastic measure of reform. The two sections of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction Act dealing with this question had been practically useless, and he wanted to know what the 125 Government were going to do. Were they going merely to give a sympathetic answer or were they going to tackle this question. If the Government were not prepared to effect a remedy at once, he urged them to appoint a Viceregal Commission to inquire into the whole question of railway and canal traffic in Ireland, so that there might be some concise information on the matter. He trusted that when the hon. Gentleman replied he would give a plain answer to these questions, as they could no longer be put off with equivocation. He would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman now Chief Secretary rose above Party politics in this matter and inaugurated his Chief Secretaryship with a large scheme of railway reform. If he did, his name would be remembered in Ireland with respect long after he had passed away. This was a great national question, and anything that would reduce the transit rates of the country in conformity with its needs would unquestionably be of great national benefit. It would promote and encourage Irish industries, help to turn the land from grass to tillage, and it would be the means of giving more employment to the people and prevent them from migrating to foreign lands in order to get a living. That would be a great national gain, and with that object in view he begged to move the Resolution standing in his name.
§ MR. MOONEY (Dublin County, S.)said that before the adjournment that evening there was one of the largest Houses that had assembled that session, but then they were only discussing a Motion for the extinction of the private Member, and that naturally would be a subject of great interest to all hon. Members of the House. At this sitting they were discussing a Motion calling attention to the condition of the railways and general transit in Ireland, and urging upon the Government the immediate necessity of taking some steps to meet the present condition of affairs. This was a much bigger question than the words of the Motion would lead one to imagine. He might be considered somewhat unorthodox, but in his opinion the mismanagement of the Irish railways was one of the greatest causes of the depopulation of that country, of the decadence of the national industries, 126 and the backward position which Ireland held amongst the nations of the world. The empty state of the House that evening was an indication of the amount of interest which British Members took in the affairs of Ireland. At the present moment there were only six British Members in the House, and amongst them was the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham. No doubt they would hear more of the hon. Baronet that evening, for he remembered that upon the last occasion when they discussed this question he read to them about six pages from an Australian handbook upon railways, which would have been interesting had it not been for the fact that it had nothing whatever to do with the subject. He did not intend quoting many statistics. His position was that the grievances under which the people of Ireland suffered were notorious. Attention had been directed to this question ever since the year 1837, and it had been constantly brought forward ever since that time. The Irish railways appeared to exist primarily for the benefit of the directors, secondly for the benefit of the shareholders, and the general public did not enter into the scheme at all. The Irish railways were subject absolutely to no competition, and they dictated their terms to the inhabitants, with the result that every industry in Ireland had been strangled. Two years ago a small company was formed to link up two small towns in the North of Ireland, and a most violent opposition was met with from the existing railways. In the course of the hearing of the case, with great difficulty they got the Great Southern and Western Railway Company and the directors of the Great Northern Railway Company to produce a copy of a secret agreement they had entered into delimiting their spheres, and agreeing that they would not allow anybody else to compete with them in their areas, and that if either of them made arrangements with any new railways they would pay damages to the other company. The question of dumping was very prominently before the country at the present time, but what did the House think of an agreement of that character? He did not know whether the hon. Baronet the Member 127 for Peckham was a pure Balfourian or a "whole-hogger."
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)I am a "whole-hogger."
§ MR. MOONEYsaid he hoped the hon. Baronet would turn his attention to the wholesale dumping of English produce into Ireland from England. It was cheaper to send goods from the middle of England to the West of Ireland than it was to send them from the West of Ireland to the East of Ireland. There was the case of the Galway distiller who used to buy all his barley in Ireland, but the railway charges were so heavy that he now purchased his barley from this country. They were all aware of the fact that the large breweries in Dublin, instead of sending their goods direct by rail to the North of Ireland, sent them by a circuitous over-sea and land route owing to the extraordinarily prohibitive rates charged by the railway companies. He was afraid that the Government would not move in this matter because it would reflect upon the policy adopted by Dublin Castle. They had had Commission after Commission, deputation after deputation, and debate after debate upon this question, and the only result had been that every promise which had been given to do something to remedy this state of things had been broken, and deputations had always received one stereotyped reply that the time was not yet opportune for making any changes. When they brought up specific complaints they were always referred to the Railway Commissioners, but what did the unfortunate peasant know about that body? What did the Irish peasant know about the Railway Board in England?
They were told that they were going to be given a brand-new Board of Agriculture. A deputation went the other day to see the Vice-President of that body, and he gave them a most sympathetic reply. They were getting accustomed to these sympathetic replies in Ireland. They discovered that the Board of Agriculture had no transit department. They had a highly technical and complicated system, but the transit arrangements were handed over to a branch of the road organisation department. The House would 128 scarcely believe that the man appointed to look after the question of railway rates and charges in Ireland by this body was a veterinary surgeon. He wished to know whether that was a joke or not. Was it the Attorney-General's idea that the question of railway transit in Ireland should be placed in the hands of the Veterinary Department of the Board of Agriculture. The latest Report of this extraordinary body was for the year 1902–3, and the only thing he could find that they had done under the heading of railways was that they had received resolutions from local bodies expressing dissatisfaction with the charges for carriage of their produce, and suggesting that there should be an inquiry into the question of the charges made by the railway companies for conveying Irish and Continental produce to the markets. He found that this Board issued a Valuable circular in January, 1903, referring to the use of fertilisers and the question of adulteration. There was a remarkable paragraph dealing with the conveyance of eggs to the market, stating that if they had large eggs they should pack them in a large box and if they had small eggs they should be packed in a small box. That was about the sum total of the work done by this beautiful Board, which was going to inquire into and smooth over all the difficulties connected with railway transit in Ireland.
The Chief Secretary had written about certain reforms which were to take place in connection with Irish Railways upon the Canadian model. When the Attorney-General was questioned upon this point he replied that he had no information upon the subject. If the Chief Secretary thought there was some necessity for making a change, from whom did he get the information? Was it obtained from the Irish Executive, or was it the result of his own inquiries? Somebody must know something about it, and the information at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman ought to allow him to answer that Question. Were they to believe that because four county councils in Ireland had refused to meet the promoters the whole scheme had been dropped? They wanted to know where the opposition to any scheme which would effectively deal with this question came from. He was inclined to believe that 129 the opposition to any reform in Irish railways came from the same section who drove the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover out of the office of Chief Secretary. A couple of years ago a gentleman connected with the railway interest in Ireland got a baronetcy, but that gentleman was largely responsible for driving out of this House the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture, Sir Horace Plunkett. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Motion or fall back upon the stereotyped reply that the time was not opportune. If it was not opportune now he wondered when it would be. They were told in former years that owing to the riots and agitation in Ireland the Government were unable to consider this question at all, but such an argument could not be advanced now because Ireland was more peaceable at the present moment than she had been for many years. He understood that the Treasury this year was in a most prosperous condition, and he was, under these circumstances, very anxious to hear what the Attorney-General would say in reply to this demand. 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 with a view to providing a remedy therefor."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)congratulated the hon. Member for West Limerick on his action in bringing a matter vitally affecting the future prosperity of Ireland before the House. He agreed with almost every word of the Resolution and he would have pleasure in supporting it if it went to a division. But the one thing on which he could not congratulate the hon. Member was the seconder whom he had chosen for it, because he thought that that hon. Gentleman's remarks had introduced into the debate a spirit which was not introduced into it by the mover himself, and would lead to a feeling of controversy which he 130 thought was entirely foreign to the, subject.
§ MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)thought that the hon. Member for Dublin County South did not refer to Scotchmen at all.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETTreplied that his own constituents were perfectly satisfied with his nationality and his conduct in the House and he hoped the hon. Member, when he went back to his constituency, would find that those whom he represented were as entirely satisfied with him as he believed his (Mr. Corbett's) constituents were satisfied with his conduct. His object was to try to get away in dealing with a large question affecting Ireland as a whole from a spirit of Party bitterness. It was so often their fate to differ very strongly from Nationalist Members that he for one was only too eager to grasp the opportunity, in which there was all the charm of variety, of agreeing with a Resolution moved from the other side of the House. In this case there ought to be no difference among those who knew the facts of the case. Ireland was essentially a pastoral and agricultural country, and there had lately been great efforts made to improve the technical training of the farmers and to bring science to their aid. Well, that was good, but it did not go far enough. As the hon. Member for West Limerick eloquently pointed out—and he hoped very convincingly pointed out—their produce must not only have a market, but must find means of setting to that market. He wished to say nothing harsh about the management of the railways in Ireland, but he thought those who knew much about the railways of Ireland felt that their rivalries and jealousies were very short-sighted and disastrous in their results. Their charges for freight were simply enormous. He thought their system of collecting produce was most primitive and unbusinesslike. He had always believed that the best piece of work for Ireland would have been that the railways should have been purchased by the State fifty years ago. That would have done more good for Ireland than many of the controversies which had engaged so much of the attention of the people both of 131 Ireland and of this country during past years. He was not sure that even now it was too late to entertain that idea. He was glad that the hon. Member had also alluded to other means of transit, and he entirely agreed with every word he said about the development of canals. There was also the question which was almost daily opening up in regard to the future possibilities in the use of motorcars. The scheme of Lord Iveagh had been referred to, and he hoped they would go on with that scheme, which might do much good for Ireland. Failing that, he thought the Government ought to take it up. He hoped the motor-car system would be taken up by others or by the State and fully developed. He thanked the hon. Member for bringing a matter of such great importance before the House. He regretted that the new Chief Secretary was not present, for he felt sure that if he only took this question up with earnestness and energy he would do much to solve the question and help on the future destinies of Ireland.
§ MR. SAMUEL YOUNG (Cavan, E.)thought that this was one of the most important questions that could come before their attention. Quick and cheap transit must certainly be necessary for the development of the resources of a country, and without it a country could not become prosperous or rich. He knew Ireland when there were no railways at all there. At that time the country was ramified with macadamised roads, and the only cost in connection with them was for their making and keeping in order. There were no syndicate profits. They were delighted then at the news that there were to be railways in Ireland, and they read the news with as much wonderment as when now-a-days they heard that in Mid.-Atlantic the passengers were able to have newspapers giving all the news of the two hemispheres. Those railways were built, but they found that they had a seamy side. They were owned by syndicates and shareholders; they ran through the richest and most populous parts of the country and left the parts perhaps most requiring facilities without any means of transit whatever. He represented a constituency which had no railways at all. There were two or three termini 132 on the borders of the county, but no railways ran through it, and they might travel eighteen miles one way and twenty miles the other and wonder whether there was no Government to think of the well-being of the country. There was no hope if they started creameries or industries in that county, for they could not get to the market with their produce. If railway directors were asked to extend their railways through the county they simply declared that it would not pay to do so. The remedy for this condition of things was nationalisation of the railways. The German system was very different. In 1879 Prince Bismarck commenced to reform the system that existed in that country in the interests of the people, and by adopting State ownership he increased the industrial wealth to an enormous extent, adding to the mileage, increasing the traffic, and reducing freight charges, besides earning some £11,000,000 which went in relief of taxation. Under this new system the freights were uniform, and were as well known to the people as postal charges for letters in this country. It contributed to the well-being and vitality of the German nation. The railways in that country were worked fox the benefit of the people, and not, as in this country, built on commercial principles and run for the benefit of the shareholders. Bacon said 300 years ago that "Fertile soil, busy workshops, and easy conveyance for men and commodities from one place to another were necessities for a land wishing to prosper," and that was true today. It was a question that touched the heart of a nation. They ought to devote more time to building up their country and attending to its material wants. Then they would succeed better than by spending money on matters which, in comparison, were light as air.
§ SIR CHARLES RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.)said he had failed to hear any suggestions of a practical character put forward by the supporters of this Motion. He had had from time to time to look into the statistics of railways in all parts of the country, and he found there was no point of the United Kingdom where the difficulties of railway administration were so acute as in Ireland. The Irish 133 railways paid the lowest dividends of any railways in the United Kingdom, a circumstance which he attributed very largely to the fact that they carried a small quantity of goods and earned very little from the travelling public. He thought that if hon. Members opposite had been versed in the practical working of railways they would not have indulged in such sweeping condemnation of the Irish railways. With a population of less than 5,000,000, the amount earned was under £4,000,000 a year, while in Scotland, with a somewhat similar population, the total earned was £12,000,000. To secure greater economy in railway administration and to lower the rates it was necessary to increase the traffic.
§ MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.)asked whether there were any baronial guarantees in Scotland.
§ SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he did not see the relevancy of the interruption. His point was that to secure better results there must be more traffic on the railways. The difficulty under which Irish railways worked was that while they brought produce to the coast for shipment to England they were able to secure very little return traffic, and that added very considerably to the cost of administration. He hoped hon. Members opposite would bring more clearly before the House the practical grievances of which they complained and the remedies they proposed. The Resolution did not suggest the State purchase of railways; it called for a remedy, but it did not state what that remedy should be.
§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)said that if he thought the House of Commons as a body was like the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken he would not trouble to bring any matter before it. If the hon. Member had listened to the speech of the mover of the Motion and yet declared that no practical suggestions had been made, he must be singularly incapable of taking in a plain statement as to matters of fact—a quality not wanting in Scotchmen generally. Bat perhaps the excuse was that he happened to be a railway director. It was not the business of Nationalist 134 Members to make practical suggestions. If they were in power and able to redress grievances it would be their duty to bring forward remedies, but, inasmuch as this Parliament insisted on governing Ireland against the people's will, all their representatives had to do was to state their grievances and leave it to the Government to devise the remedies. Where the power was, there also was the responsibility. If Irishmen were given the power they would not hesitate to accept the responsibility. But it was not true to say that no practical suggestions had been made. More eminent men than his hon. friend had suggested that the Irish railways should be managed by the State. In the draft Report of the Financial Relations Commission the late Mr. Childers suggested that an annual grant should be given to enable Irish railways to reduce their charges. His hon. friends had been taunted with want of knowledge on this subject. But it was not necessary to be a railway director to know something about railways. One could acquire by reading some knowledge about good and bad management of railways, bogus companies, and inflated dividends. He agreed with the hon. Member opposite that what was wanted was a greater production, but before they could secure that it was necessary to remove those causes by which production was hampered and almost extinguished. An interesting lesson in this matter might be drawn from Belguim which, until its independence, was full of discontent, with bad means of transit, and almost all the evils with which Ireland was now afflicted. But since it had enjoyed the inestimable blessing of governing itself it had got rid of all those evils, and had become a formidable competitor with England herself in many directions. It was true that that improvement was not brought about solely by railway reform; it was largely due to another reform to which the hon. Gentlemen opposite would doubtless not consent in the case of Ireland.
The Attorney-General was able to assert many things, but he could not deny that, in the words of the Resolution, railway rates in Ireland were excessive and transit facilities defective; and he did not think he would deny that those facts constituted a serious bar to the material ad- 135 vancement of Ireland. If those points were admitted, was it not the duty of the Government to give the matter the immediate attention for which the Resolution asked with a view to providing a remedy? If the existence of grievances was admitted, what else was a Government for but to provide remedies? In conclusion, he desired to ask what had become of the Iveagh-Pirrie scheme. The announcement of that scheme had been made, and had aroused great expectations throughout the country. He ventured to say that there was not a better field in the whole of Ireland than North Dublin for such an experiment as this scheme of Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie. The Government had been asked when anything was going to be done to realise the hopes and expectations held out by the Chief Secretary in the speech to which he had referred, but nothing at all had been done in connection with the Iveagh-Pirrie scheme. He wished to know what had become of that scheme? Were they going to hear anything more of it? If it was going to be dropped, what other programme was going to take its place? He did not know whether the Attorney-General would be able to answer those Questions, but he hoped he would be able to say something on that subject, even in the absence of the Chief Secretary. The Attorney-General was able to say a good deal about Sir Antony MacDonnell in the speeches he delivered in the North of Ireland, in which he asked who was at the bottom of the devolution scheme, who baptised it, and who drafted it? If he knew so much about that subject independently of the Chief Secretary why could he not reply upon this?
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,N.) Londonderry,I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I knew no more than he did about the devolution scheme; but I made certain surmises, which seem to have been very accurate. [Ironical NATIONALIST cheers.]
§ MR. CLANCYsaid the Attorney-General had quite confirmed what he had stated. Why could he not tell them something about the Iveagh- Pirrie scheme? Why could he not give them 136 some information upon this point when he was able to surmise all about the MacDonnell incident? Surely Lord Iveagh had visited Dublin Castle in connection with the Sir Antony MacDonnell incident, and they ought to have some definite information as to whether this scheme was all humbug or not. He was inclined to think that it was more humbug than anything else.
Why had the Agricultural Department not done something in this matter? That body was established for the ostensible purpose of benefiting the agricultural industry in Ireland. As far as he could see the only thing it had done up to the present was to provide £90,000 in salaries for certain persons, amongst whom was the son of an Earl who was content with a salary of about £200 a year. He presumed that this official rendered proportionate service. Why was this Department endowed with £250,000 a year? Surely it was intended that that sum should be devoted to the promotion of agriculture, and he should have thought that one of the objects to which that money would have been devoted would have been to find out better means of transit for agricultural produce to the market. What had been done by the Agricultural Department to achieve this object? As far as he could gather, nothing whatever had been done. He was aware that a very considerable amount had been added to local taxation, but nothing in the nature of a scheme for improving transit facilities had yet been heard of. He would like the Attorney-General to state what the Agricultural Department had done; whether it had done anything, and if it had not done anything what was the reason for it?
He thought English Members were pursuing a very shortsighted policy by being absent upon occasions like this. They had been taunted from time to time with being impractical and sentimental, but these charges were generally made by men who were drawing very considerable salaries from the public purse. This Motion dealt with a question which was intimately and closely connected with the welfare of Ireland and nothing else, and nobody could contend that any political object could be gained by bringing forward this 137 subject. If anything, the remedies they were proposing would not benefit Nationalist supporters but Unionist shareholders. English Members on both sides of the House had carefully abstained from attending the debate upon this question, but speaking from his own Party point of view this was all the better for the Nationalist movement, and he did not expect anything else from English Members. He confessed that if the English benches were filled, as far as Ireland was concerned the effective power would be about the same. English Members either would not understand or were incapable of understanding Irish questions, and they had the curious idea that their duty was to ridicule Irish Members and their opinions and make out that Ireland had no grievances. That was a very discouraging state of affairs, but it was instructive to Ireland. It taught Irishmen to trust to themselves alone and place no faith in the good sense or the fairness of English Members. It was only the fear of the inconvenience that Irish Members could put them to that made them realise the necessity of doing something for Ireland.
§ *MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)said he could not congratulate the hon. Member who had just sat down upon the tone of his speech.
§ *MR. CLANCYI should be very sorry if you could.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the speech of his hon. friend the Member for Renfrewshire was a most temperate and excellent contribution to the debate. [An HON. MEMBER: He fulfilled the arrangement and then left the House.] The manner in which the hon. Member opposite had treated this question was entirely wanting in taste. He wished to congratulate the hon. Member who moved the Motion upon the temperate way in which he brought the matter before the House, for there was very little in his speech to which any hon. Member could take exception. He had hoped that the debate would have been carried on in the same manner. So far as he was concerned he agreed very largely with the 138 terms of the Resolution before the House No doubt transit facilities in Ireland were defective, but the blame for this should not be laid entirely upon the railway companies. Most of the speeches had been directed against the railway companies, but it was only fair to give to those companies the credit which the deserved. The question before the House that night was whether they were of opinion that the whole system of transit in Ireland should be taken over by the Government, by acquiring the absolute ownership of railways and canals, or whether they should by means of subsidies help the various railway companies to earn what hon. Members opposite agreed they deserved—a fair return for their money, and, at the same time, to enable farmers and traders to send their goods from the place where they were produced to the markets in England at a more reasonable figure than they could do at present. When they came to compare the rates which producers and farmers in Ireland had to pay in sending their goods to English markets with those which were paid by traders in other countries, the comparison, he took leave to say, was fallacious. It was quite clear that where railways were owned by the State, and where the taxpayer paid the freight instead of the producer, the producer would not have so much to pay. Whether the Government of Great Britain was prepared to seriously consider the question of either subsidising Irish railways or buying them up altogether he did not know, but he imagined the question was a much larger one than hon. Members opposite seemed I to think. It seemed to him that if Irish railways were to be nationalised a demand would be forthwith made for the nationalisation of the English railways, and that hon. Members would admit was a bigger undertaking than the present Government would undertake.
He had found that the comparisons put forward between Irish railways and other railways were misleading, inasmuch as in many cases the sea carriage was included in the through rate. When they introduced the sea carriage they upset the whole of their calculations. There was no possibility 139 of comparing railways in America with those in Ireland, because in America 90 per cent, of the traffic was "car load" traffic or commodities of, say, twenty tons and upwards. In Ireland only about 5 per cent, of the whole traffic came under this class, the remainder of the traffic being in small parcels. Where a railway was subsidised by the State it was quite clear they could not compare its freights with those of the Great Northern or Great Southern in Ireland. He had been moved to speak because he thought it proper that at least one Irish Member of the House should make it clear that he did not share some of the views entertained by hon. Gentlemen opposite regarding Irish railways. He admitted that the facilities were perhaps not as they should be, and he was almost inclined to agree that the railways should be made the property of the State. Certainly he went so far as to say that everything that could be done to subsidise railway companies so as to make it possible for them to give cheaper freights than they did at present would have his support.
§ DR. AMBROSE (Mayo, W.)said that some two years ago a pamphlet was issued by the Foreign Office upon the best means of transit in Continental countries, showing how the canals were managed, and what effect they had upon the railway system and the seaport towns. If instead of lecturing them the hon Member for South Antrim had read that pamphlet he would have derived far more information from it than the knowledge which he had presumed to give to the House as his own experience of railways. There were in France 10,000,000 miles of canals, and the cost had been borne by the State. During Grattan's Parliament Ireland supplied at least £1,300,000 for the making of canals, with the result that no country on the face of the globe made such rapid strides in commerce, arts, and literature as Ireland did during that period. Grattan's Parliament devoted its energies to the development of the resources of Ireland, but the English Parliament had never devoted one penny to the development of the canal system. In the seven years following the Franco- 140 Prussian War France spent £9,640,000 on improvements connected with waterways, harbours, and maritime ports, but what had England spent upon Irish canals and ports? There was a great flutter a few years ago about the expenditure of £100,000 all over Ireland, and £70,000 of that sum was to be devoted to Westport. It was a fact that not a single sod had been turned there yet to develop a harbour, which the late Chief Secretary, who had been sacrificed upon the altar of bigotry, said would transform the province of Connaught from a congested district into a paradise. Not a penny of that sum had been spent up to the present. Recognising that one of the chief causes of prosperity in a country was the facility with which produce could be brought to market, the French Government had in recent years expended£27,000,000 upon canals and waterways, and had made provision for a further expenditure of £21,000,000 within the next sixteen years. In Ireland there had been a grant of £100,000, and even this had not been expended. He only wished he could get a sum of £1,000 or £2,000 voted for a harbour in Clare Island, but the excuse given for not granting this request was that there were only some 500 people there, He wished to know if those people were to be permanently locked up there without any proper transit facilities simply because they happened to be six miles from the mainland. On the French canals there were no tolls, and they were all free. That was one of the greatest incentives to the French peasant to develop his farm and the resources of his country. He could give similar instances in Germany, Holland, and Belgium, showing how the provision of proper transit facilities had enabled those countries to make rapid strides in the path of progress. If Ireland only got the management of its own affairs they would cease coming to the British Parliament imploring English Members who knew nothing whatsoever about Ireland to give them proper facilities for transit.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid he wished to join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Limerick for the ability with which he had introduced this subject. The question raised by the Motion was 141 undoubtedly most important. No one could deny that it was a great disadvantage to a country to have an inadequate transit system, or that, if the railway rates were excessive to the extent of being injurious, they should be reduced. But he could not enter upon a discussion of that aspect of the question at all. At the same time it was right to say that it was most fallacious to compare the railway and canal rates of Ireland with the railway and canal rates of Continental countries, when the conditions were so different. It was desirable, no doubt, that there should be cheap and easy transit, but gentlemen who propounded schemes of reform too often forgot that there was no country which required more the investment of capital than Ireland, and that there was no more dangerous operation than to rob capital of its fruits. If they wanted to do anything by private enterprise they must depend, not upon Irish capital, but upon English capital, and he knew that in almost every instance of the guaranteed lines which were made in Ireland the capital had to be placed in this country. Take the case of the Armagh Railway which had been referred to. The Bill for that railway was supported by a petition, in which it was said that it was desirable to have lower rates of carriage, and that the railway would be a vast advantage to the district. The Bill was carried, and the capital of the company was £110,000, but out of the whole of that amount £110 was all that was subscribed in Ireland.
An attack had been made on the Agricultural Department, and it had been alleged that it had left undone the things it ought to have done, and had done the things it ought not to have done, and that there was no health in it. The Agricultural Department, he would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, had no right to intervene simply on the ground that rates were excessive. What they had a right to do, and what they had done successfully, was to intervene and appeal to the Commissioners if a railway company was giving a preference or any unfair advantage to any class or district. The Department had bestowed much attention on a most important task, that of obtaining and diffusing knowledge 142 on a number of important matters. One of these was the way in which produce should be forwarded. Denmark had made enormous strides in the English market by reason of the attractive form in which it made up butter for sale. The Reports for last year, however, showed a decline in the number of parcels of Irish goods which had been rejected, and in the complaints made by merchants in England. The Department had also taken up complaints made by persons whose goods were delayed in transit. They were, in addition, endeavouring to impress upon producers in Ireland the great folly of not sending forward their goods in large bulk. Communications had also been made to railway companies regarding the loading and unloading of cattle, and arrangements intended to meet the requirements of the case had been adopted at a number of places on different railways. The Department had a large number of inspectors whose business it was to see to the loading of cattle, and they endeavoured to secure that the animals should be properly treated. They had devoted time, attention, and expense to all the subjects that had been raised, but with regard to rates they had no Coercive powers whatever, though they could make suggestions as to the making of better arrangements, the carrying of traffic in larger bulk, and its better distribution. The Department had put in force all the powers it possessed, and had thereby, he contended, conferred great benefit on the country.
With regard to the proposed motor scheme in districts through which no railways ran, it was obvious that only a large and general scheme could be undertaken. It was considered that any such scheme would be inoperative unless heavy wagons were used, and the roads and bridges would have to be made fit to carry such traffic. Four county councils had refused to go to the necessary expense, and others did not show any disposition to do so. The result was that up to the present no further advance had been made in putting the scheme in actual operation, but it had by no means been abandoned. He hoped that the county councils would try to make arrangements 143 to put the roads into a proper condition to carry motor-car traffic.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)asked if the scheme was not to be put into operation unless all the county councils were agreed?
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid it was the decision of the Department that a general scheme should be adopted.
With reference to the other portion of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, he did not understand him to say that there should be a State purchase of Irish railways. There were conflicting opinions as to whether the railway rates in Ireland were excessive. Some people declared that having regard to the position of the country they were not. He had never applied his mind to this most important question—[An HON. MEMBER on the Irish benches: Nor to any other Irish question.]—and it deserved the attention of the Government. He could not pledge the new Chief Secretary to any particular course of action, nor give a pledge that night which would bind the Government in regard to this matter, but he would promise on their behalf that the whole subject would receive the most earnest and anxious attention.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put:" but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston)said he had given great consideration to this important question. Unfortunately he had not been able to hear the early part of the discussion, but he thought that the water transit both of England and Ireland had not been developed.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
144§ Resolved, 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 with a view to providing a remedy therefor.