THIRD READING. (Hansard, 24 June 1878)

§ LORD WAVENEY
said, he had given Notice of an Amendment to strike out a clause which had been inserted at the instance of the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale); but it was not his intention to proceed with it, though the question involved was one of such public importance that he hoped their Lordships would allow him to briefly state the facts in regard to the matter. For some time there had been in general use for the railways throughout Ireland a gauge of 5 feet 3 inches, which was known as one between the broad and narrow gauges of this country. The 5 feet 3 inch gauge, however, had been found impracticable in the case of some mineral and other lines; and, therefore, a railway with a gauge of 3 feet had been sanctioned. That was the gauge for the present railway; but a provision had been introduced that the company must purchase land sufficient to enable them, if necessary, hereafter to make the 3 feet gauge into one of 5 feet 3 inches. Now, he was aware that as a question of public policy, it might be argued that there ought not to be two gauges of railway in a country; but the analogy derived from England did not hold good in the case of Ireland. The broad and narrow gauges in England were competing lines, and they met at points at which further transport was necessary. Such was not the case in Ireland. It was highly probable that all the main railways in that country had been completed, and it was only small branch railways that would in future be required to be constructed; and, from the circumstances of the country, these could not be made with the broad, but must be made with the narrow gauge. The Ballymena and Larne Railway was a short line, on which there would be steep gradients and narrow curves, and the 3 feet gauge would best answer its requirements, and it could never come into competition with the 5 feet 3 inch gauge. Consequently, it was a great hardship that the company should be compelled to purchase a quantity of additional land which they would never 103 want. About 6 acres per mile would suffice for the narrow guage. Yet 10 or 12 acres would have to be obtained if the broad gauge was insisted upon. In addition to this extra cost, there would be expenses for plant, &c. The promoters of the Bill had issued a statement from which he would like to read one or two extracts. They said that— The obligation to purchase the additional land, and provide the additional width of bridges, would tend to discourage the development of narrow gauge railways. That this involved the discouragement of railway enter-prize, as the difficulty of obtaining capital for the construction of broad gauge railways rendered impossible any further development of railway accommodation upon that system. That the narrow gauge was well adapted to Ireland, and to parts of the country where the broad gauge could not be employed. It was less costly in construction, and could be safely worked with steeper inclinations and sharper curves than the old broad gauge. That its introduction would, in many cases, assist rather than interfere with the old broad gauge railways, as the narrow gauge railways were mainly designed and adapted for feeders to, and not competitors with, the old broad gauge undertakings. The obligation involved an additional expenditure of variously estimated, but considerable amount, which might impede or prevent the construction of railways of great public utility, and such expenditure must be at first, and for many years, wholly unproductive. It would be, to a great extent, entirely unproductive, as the narrow gauge could be laid and worked in situations where the broad gauge would he impracticable. In order to adapt to the broad gauge lines laid out upon the narrow, a complete re-construction of the line and alteration of curves and gradients would be frequently necessary. These were reasons which he thought ought to have weight with their Lordships; but, he repeated, on the present occasion he should not press the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am glad my noble Friend has called your Lordships' attention to this question; and, although it may not be a subject for any immediate decision of the House, yet I am anxious to represent to your Lordships the very great evils which may arise if it is supposed that the clause which is now contained in this Private Bill is to be a continuing clause as to the fixed opinion of Parliament as to the construction of railways in Ireland. The question lies in a narrow compass. The gauge in Ireland is 5 feet 3 inches; but it has been ascertained that there are many places where railways are required for the conveyance of goods and 104 minerals in which the 3 feet gauge is best adapted, and can be made at a much cheaper rate. What makes the narrow gauge railways so much more economical is that they require a smaller quantity of land, and they can be made with gradients and curves, with which it would be impossible to construct the broad gauge lines. My noble Friend the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale) has thought it right to insert a clause to compel this railway to take as much land as may be required for a 5 feet 3 inch gauge, his object being to guard against its hereafter turning out that the 3 feet gauge is not successful. Now, if the construction of the 5 feet 3 inch gauge would insure an exchange of traffic, I would admit there would be a great deal to say for the proposition; but, in point of fact, this clause will be perfectly useless, except for the purpose of creating expense. It is not the breadth of the gauge, but it is the gradients and the curves which form the expense, and you are making the promoters of these small railways take double the land they require, and you make them take land which will be perfectly useless to them; because, in the narrow gauge lines, the gradients and curves would be perfectly useless for the broader gauge. Such a clause as this imposes an almost ruinous weight upon the promoters of small railways, and I hope it will not go forth in Ireland that when undertakings of this kind are promoted, they are to be weighted by Parliament with such a vast additional cost which can be of no use whatever to them.

§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
felt bound to say that this was a question of very great importance to Ireland. He had the pleasure of opening this very line last year, and had an opportunity of seeing the character of its construction, and he thought that his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees had, in this instance, carried his prudence a little too far. He could quite understand that he was extremely unwilling that the contest between the gauges—known in England as "the battle of the gauges"—should be repeated in Ireland; but he could assure him that was not likely to be the case—there was not the slightest possibility of any such event occurring. The two gauges in Ireland could never become 105 competing lines. As had been stated by the noble Lord (Lord Waveney), the railway system of Ireland was pretty nearly complete, and the only other lines which were now being constructed were for the purpose of opening out mineral and agricultural districts which would not otherwise have the means of transport; and these lines were constructed upon a different principle to those which existed, the curves and gradients being different, and the rolling stock employed could never be worked upon a line constructed upon the ordinary system. It was qnite impossible, therefore, to suppose that these railways could ever raise such a conflict as that which, no doubt, existed for some time to the prejudice of the railway system in England. What his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) had stated was perfectly accurate. The clause which was now inserted in the Bill merely operated as a fine upon the construction of these railways, because they had to take land which they would never require, and build bridges which would never be duly used. The additional expense thus thrown upon the promoters must act in a most disadvantageous manner. He was quite sure his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees was acting for what he believed to be the best interests of the railway system of Ireland; but he would point out to him and to their Lordships that this was not the best way to promote the railway interest of Ireland.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE
said, the gauges to be used by railways were settled by a general Act, and unless Parliament chose to alter the existing law, he should feel it his duty to take care that the introduction of a double gauge was carefully and guardedly watched. In inserting in the Bill the provision to which the noble Lord (Lord Waveney) referred, he simply desired to protect the public interests, and to follow out the existing law on the subject. In his opinion, it would be a misfortune to Ireland if their Lordships were to encourage a narrow gauge system; but, if they intended to do so, they ought to pass a general Statute for the purpose, and not allow the thing to be done by the promoters of local mineral lines, or by the side-wind of a Private Bill. If their Lordships did not agree to such a clause as that which was now 106 objected to, they would have the 3-feet gauge spreading throughout all Ireland; and the expense and trouble of converting such a gauge, at some future time, into a wider one, would be found to be very great. It was for Parliament, however, to say what ought to be done in the matter, whether there ought to be two gauges or not; and with Parliament alone should rest the responsibility of determining the question.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, the noble Earl who had just spoken need not have assured their Lordships that he had acted solely under what he conceived to be for the best interests of the public. But he must remind his noble Friend that this was not now a question as to whether there ought or ought not to be two gauges in Ireland. Parliament had already settled the point. There had been some half-dozen of the 3-feet lines sanctioned for Ireland; and in all probability there would in a short time be many more. His noble Friend, however, was not responsible for that; the responsibility lay with the Legislature. Parliament had declared that there were certain places in regard to which a case had been made out for a narrow gauge line; but what had been the effect of the precautionary clauses introduced into the Bills for that gauge? It had been provided that the promoters of the measures referred to should build bridges of sufficient width for the 5 feet 3 inch gauge; but the provision said nothing about the height of the bridges, and the result was that those hitherto built, whilst perfectly suitable, perhaps, in connection with local requirements, were perfectly unsuitable for the broader gauge, owing to their limited height.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE
said, that as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had spoken twice, the House might allow him to make another observation. A uniform gauge had been prescribed by general Act of Parliament; while the 3 feet gauge was sanctioned only in particular instances, and by Private Bills. He must repeat his desire that, whatever might be done in this matter, would be done upon the responsibility of Government and of Parliament.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, that although, at first sight, this matter might appear to be a comparatively small one, it was, in reality, a question of great importance in Ireland. It 107 seemed to him that small gauge railways were peculiarly suited to many portions of that country; and that it was both absurd and contradictory, after expressly sanctioning them, to compel the purchase of a quantity of unnecessary land, because, perhaps, some other day it might be thought that a 5 feet 3 inch gauge would be better. But he agreed with his noble Friend (the Earl of Redesdale) that, if there was to be a double gauge in Ireland, its introduction ought to take the form of a general Statute; and that Parliament, on its own responsibility, should come to some distinct conclusion on the subject.