ページの画像
PDF
ePub

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND asked 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. WYNDHAM said 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 32 miles of the route in the North East of Ireland and the railway company were now working 35 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 PortGlenone awaiting to be worked. From Newcastle to Kilkeel 133 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 these, 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 18 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

He had detained the House at very great length and he did not propose to enter into further detail in regard to this scheine 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 private enterprise would be stimulated hoped that by improving the harbours, 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

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.

was

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

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.) said that at one time it would have been a very easy thing to secure some sort of amalga mation amongst these struggling railways in Ireland which had done so much harm to the country. The right hon. Gentle man 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 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 Com- nationalisation of the Irish railways as mission 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 suc cess 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 Noes, 121.

an urgent and necessary reform. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would at least accept the Motion.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said 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 com munication.

[blocks in formation]

Question put:

The

House divided -Ayes,
(Division List No. 13.)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson
Burke, E. Haviland
Burns, John
Caldwell, James

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)
Causton, Richard Knight

Crean, Eugene

Cremer, William Randal
Delany, William

87;

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)
Doogan, P. C.

Flavin, Michael Joseph.
Flynn, James Christopher

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Gilhooly, James
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Hayden, John Patrick
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.
Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Jordan, Jeremiah
Joyce, Michael

Kilbride, Denis

[blocks in formation]

Rose, Charles Day

Shackleton, David James
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Sheehy, David
Strachey, Sir Edward
Sullivan, Donal

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. | Roche, John
Mooney, John J.
Morrell, George Herbert
Murphy, John
Nannetti, Joseph P.
Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

[blocks in formation]

O'Dowd, John

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)
O'Malley, William
O'Mara, James
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Pirie, Duncan V.

Power, Patrick Joseph
Reddy, M.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Redmond, William (Clare)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte
Anson, Sir William Reynell
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.
Arrol, Sir William
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John
Balcarres, Lord
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds
Banbury, Sir Frederick George
Bignold, Arthur

Blundell, Colonel Henry
Bond, Edward

Brassey, Albert

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.A(Wore
Coates, Edward Feetham
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Cust, Henry John C.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Davenport, William Bromley
Dewar,Sir T.R(Tower Hamlets
Dickson, Charles Scott
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers
Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Duke, Henry Edward
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Dyke, Rt. Hn.Sir William Hart
Flower, Sir Ernest
Forster, Henry William
Fyler, John Arthur
Galloway, William Johnson
Gardner, Ernest

Gordon, Hn.J.E. (Elgin & Nairn)
Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)
Goschen, Hn. George Joachim
Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

[ocr errors]

NOES.

Grenfell, William Henry
Groves, James Grimble

| Hamilton,Marq of(L'nd❜nderry
Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th
Hay, Hon. Claude George
Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)
Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.
Hope,J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside)
Hoult, Joseph

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)
Hunt, Rowland
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Kerr, John

Keswick, William
Kimber, Henry
Knowles, Sir Lees

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)
Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)
Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) |
Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Maconochie, A. W.
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Manners, Lord Cecil

Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.
Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir FrederickG.
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)
Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)
Morrison, James Archibald
Mount, William Arthur
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS
AMENDMENT BILL.

|

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) Toulmin, George

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney) White, George (Norfolk) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) Young, Samuel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES-Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Percy, Earl

Plummer, Walter R.
Pretyman, Ernest George
Pym, C. Guy
Ratcliff, R. F.
Reid, James (Greenock)
Renwick, George
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Royds, Clement Molyneux
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Stewart, Sir Mark J. M‘Taggart
Stock, James Henry
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Thornton, Percy M.
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Tuff, Charles

Tuke, Sir John Batty
Valentia, Viscount
Walrond, Rt.Hn.Sir William H
Warde, Colonel C. E.
Webb, Colonel William George
Welby, Lt.-Col.A.C.E(Taunton
Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)
Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Wylie, Alexander
Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES-Sir Alexander Acland Hood, and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

[ocr errors]

Adjourned at ten minutes after
Twelve o'clock.

Speech indicates revision by the Member. An Asterisk (*) at the commencement of a

[blocks in formation]

Baker Street and Waterloo Railway

Bill; Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Great Northern and City Railway (Extension of Time) Bill;

Humber Commercial Railway

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1904-5.

Copy presented, of Army Estimates of Effective and Non-Effective Services for

Command]; referred to the Committee the year ending 31st March, 1905 [by of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 73.]

and Dock Bill; North Staffordshire ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES, 1904-5). Railway Bill; Surrey Commercial Dock Bill. Read a second time, and committed. London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.

LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND
RATING) BILL.

Copy presented, of the sum required for the year ending 31st March, 1905, to defray the expense of the Ordnance Factories [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 74.]

ARMY (MEMORANDUM ON ESTIMATES)

Copy presented, of Memorandum of the Secretary of State relating to the Army Estimates of 1904-5 [by Com

Petition from Lewisham, in favour; mand]; to lie upon the Table. to lie upon the Table.

LICENCE HOLDERS.

Petition from Scarborough, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.

LICENCES (RENEWAL).

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.

Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Motherwell and Bellshill Railway (Abandonment) Order, and the objects thereof [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).

Petitions against alteration of Law; from Llwynhendy; Wrexham; Stockport; Lincoln (two); Tovil; Keynsham; East Kent; Stanningley; Brynsiencyn; Cilfren; Maesteg; Esgairnant; Betch- Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Conworth; South Norwood; Law; Croy- sular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3122 don; Guildford; Newbridge; Leicester; [by Command]; to lie upon the Table. Lampeter; Gartmore; Llanhilleth;

66

Address for Return of the numbers

Gaediffaith; Engedi and Rhiw; Fou- SOUTH AFRICAN MINES (MORTALITY). bridge; Newcastle; Leeds; Newcastle Emlyn; Monkwearmouth; Southall; and Accrington; to lie upon the Table.

LONDON GOVERNMENT ACT, 1899. Petition from Islington, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED

WIFE'S SISTER BILL.

Petitions against; from Penryn, and Tunbridge Wells; to lie upon the Table. VOL. CXXX. [FOURTH SERIES.]

and rate of mortality from (a) accident, (b) other causes, among (1) the white miners, artisans, and labourers employed in the Rand Mines; (2) all classes of natives in the Rand Mines; (3) the British Central African natives in the Rand Mines; (4) the natives in the Rhodesian Mines; and (5) the natives in the De Beers' Mines, Kimberley, during the last twelve months for which statistics are obtainable."-(Mr. Trevelyan.)

2 E

POOR LAW SUPERANNUATION

(IRELAND) BILL.

Income and Expenditure of Patent Office-
MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to

average annual amount for the past ten years of the Patent Office Vote and Patent Office extra receipts respectively received in Great Britain and amount expended therein, and also state average annual amount of Patent Office extra receipts received from Ireland, and state average annual expenditure in Ireland during the same period.

"To provide for Superannuation the Treasury whether he can state the Allowances to certain local officers and servants in Ireland, for contributions towards such allowances by such officers and servants, and to make other relative provisions," presented by Mr. O'Malley; supported by Sir James Haslett, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Joseph Devlin, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Condon, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Clancy, Mr. McGovern, and Mr. Lundon; to be read a second time upon Friday, 4th March, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

Upkeep of London and Dublin
Stationery Offices.

MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the average annual amounts expended during the last ten years on the principal items in connection with the upkeep (as distinct from the amounts expended on books, stationery, and other requisites for the various departments) of the London Stationery Office and the Dublin Stationery Office respectively during those years.

(Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The average annual amounts expended from the Vote for Stationery and Printing during the ten years last completed in connection with the upkeep of the London Stationery Office and the Dublin Stationery Office have been respectively £34,220 and £3,058, making a total of £37,278. These figures include the amounts paid for salaries and wages for horses, carts, and incidental expenses, for police, and for printing, paper, etc. I am not in a position to state exactly the amounts spent from other Votes in connection with the upkeep of the two offices; but the following are the estimated amounts taken from Returns printed with the Stationery Office Estimate. The estimated average annual expenses during the ten years for rent, furniture, fuel, and light have been in London £2,957, in Dublin £504. The figures for other items, e.g., rates, telegrams, postage, etc.,

[ocr errors]

(Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The average annual amount of the Vote for the Patent Office for the past ten years was £63,110, and the average annual amount of the receipt from Patent Stamps was £205,242, of which £969 was from Ireland. The separate figures of expenditure for Ireland cannot be stated.

Average Amount of Admiralty Vote-
Average Expenditure of same
in Ireland.

MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the average annual amount of the Admiralty Vote for the past ten years, and give the annual average expenditure in connection with Haulbowline Dockyard and the coastguard service in Ireland during those years.

(Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The accounts of the Admiralty are not kept in such a form as to enable the information asked for in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question to be given. Any statement on the subject is necessarily incomplete and is nothing more then an approximation. The details as to naval expenditure during the past ten years will be found in a statement attached to the Navy Estimates which will be circulated to-night.

[blocks in formation]

MR. THORNTON (Clapham): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that temporary clerks who were certificated by the Civil Service Commissioners and entered the service between the end of the year 1870 and August, 1871, and were afterwards promoted to permanent posts in the service, are allowed to reckon only half

« 前へ次へ »