APH
Source: Hansard House of Commons Debates
LOCAL AND PERSONAL ACTS, HC Deb 28 July 1863 vol 172 c1500
An Act to extend the Time for the Compiction of the Athenry and Ennis Junction Railway; and for other purposes.
Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) (Athenry and Tuam Extension to Claremorris Railway) Confirmation Act, 1891
AND TO BE JUDICIALLY NOTICED.HC Deb 06 July 1865 vol 180 c1184
An Act to give Effect to an Arrangement concerning the Contribution payable under certain Enactments by certain Baronies in Roscommon and Galway and the County of the Town of Galway to the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Company.
An Act to define the Capital of the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Company; to enable the Company to create Preference Shares; and for other Purposes.
SECOND READING.
HC Deb 17 July 1872 vol 212 cc1299-342 1299
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR ROWLAND BLENNERHASSETT:
In moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that notwith- standing the difficulty attending the attempt of any private Member undertaking such a bold step as that he was about to do, yet he thought it better to submit the question to the House in the form of a Bill than by an abstract Resolution, inasmuch as the Bill showed in detail, however imperfectly, how his proposal was to be carried into practical operation. The question had often been asked, how it was that railways in Ireland had not stimulated trade, or induced a spirit of change and progress in the Irish people in anything like the proportion which was seen in other countries? The answer was to be found in the evidence given before the Royal Commission, of which the Duke of Devonshire was Chairman. All that evidence showed that the railway system of Ireland was based on radically unsound principles, and that the working of those principles produced evils greatly aggravated by the special circumstances of the country. Almost all the witnesses examined before that Commission agreed that the fundamental evil of the Irish railway system was want of unity of management. All complained of the indisposition on the part of the directors to amalgamate, and of the rivalries and jealousies that existed on the part of the various companies. No accommodation was given for passenger traffic, and nothing was done to promote the trade, to develope the mining interest, or to facilitate the sale of the agricultural produce of the country. Several witnesses showed in detail the want of accommodation for travellers from one part of Ireland to another. One of them complained of the bad communication between Limerick and Dublin, of the delays upon the road and of the slowness of even the fastest train, which took 5½ hours to travel 130 miles. The hon. Member for Waterford deposed to the difficulty of getting from Waterford to the interior of the country, or even of getting to Dublin, owing to the indisposition of the Great Southern and Western Railway to act in harmony with the other companies. At the time that the hon. Gentleman gave his evidence it took a third-class passenger two days to get from Waterford to Dublin, a distance of 112 miles. Exorbitant fares were charged, especially for third-class passengers, and in July some of the railways in the North of Ireland raised their fares from 10 to 15 per cent. Mr. Macfarlane, a magistrate for the City of Dublin, said that there was less accommodation between the North and South of Ireland now than formerly when there were coaches both by day and night. Now they had only conveyances by day, and the earliest train from the country did not reach Dublin till 5 in the afternoon. Numerous witnesses showed the difficulty which existed in conveying the agricultural produce of the country to the markets. Mr. Meldon, a landowner in Galway, who farmed largely himself, stated he was unable to send his agricultural produce to the Dublin market owing to the high rates. If the rates were more moderate he could send 3,000 or 4,000 tons of farm produce from Galway to Dublin every year. He grew green crops on a very large scale, as a matter of farming necessity, but he was shut out from realizing the profits incidental to their cultivation, by his enforced exclusion from the Dublin markets. With a moderate rate he could send the whole to Dublin and take manure back by the return trucks. The other farmers of the country would soon follow his example, and a better system of farming would thus be introduced. Mr. Forbes, for 10 years manager to the Midland and Great Western Railway Company, said he knew of potatoes being sold in Galway, within a few miles of a railway station, at 1d. or 2d. a stone, while the price was 7d. in Dublin; and he went on to show how the trade in grain, potatoes, turnips, bacon, poultry, eggs, and other commodities would be developed by a better system of railway management and smaller charges. Similar evidence was given by many other witnesses. It was stated, also, that hardly one-seventh of the cattle, sheep, and horses which were moved from one part of Ireland to another were conveyed by rail. On the Bandon line no cattle were carried at all. In the neighbourhood of Dublin, the great centre of the cattle traffic, all the animals were walked to market. Cattle bought in the towns of Limerick and Clare were driven along the roads to Dublin, and not one-twentieth part of those which went to Ballinasloe Fair were conveyed by rail. As regarded the carriage of goods, the same complaints were made. He would mention an instance which happened only the other day. In March last, Messrs. Butler, very respectable brewers in Tralee, wished to transmit some ale to the Curragh Camp, a distance of 170 miles. The railway, however, would not carry it under 26s. a-ton. As that charge would materially diminish, if not completely annihilate, their profits, Messrs. Butler were compelled to ship the ale at Tralee, have it conveyed round a dangerous coast to Dublin, then by canal to Naas, and thence by cars to the Curragh. The result is, that the Irish railways gave a bonus to the English as against the Irish trades. Mr. Bagot, a Dublin merchant, told the Royal Commissioners that the merchants of Dublin were frequently obliged to send their goods to England and have them re-shipped there and sent back through Dublin to the Western part of Ireland. Mr. Bewley showed that while the rate for goods from Liver-to Castlebar through Dublin was 20s. a ton, the Dublin merchant was charged over the same line 27s. 6d. a ton. So that the English merchant sent his goods to Dublin free, and, having got them there, sent them on to Castlebar for 7s. 6d. a ton less than the Dublin merchant could send his goods for over the same line. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) also testified to the fact that sugar, tea, and Manchester goods were carried from Liverpool to Limerick at a lower rate than from Dublin to Limerick. What defence could be set up for such a system as this? Professor Sullivan and Mr. Mallett, President of the Irish Society of Engineers, gave evidence as to the injury done to the mining interest of Ireland by the present system of railway management. A great many mines were scattered through Ireland, yielding produce of only a low value, such as sulphur, iron, and tin ores. Professor Sullivan exemplified the rates which were charged for these products, by stating that the expense of carriage of the sulphur ore of the Wicklow Mining Company from the mine to Kingstown was more than 25 per cent of the total value of the product. The same company found iron ore and worked it extensively. The charge for the carriage of iron ore was 56 per cent on its actual value. Independent of the valuable ores, the smaller ore could not be sent at all, as the carriage of it would be 92 per cent on actual value. The influence of the cost of charge on the zinc mines near Nenah was still more important. Professor Sullivan was of opinion that if the charges was reduced to the extent of one-half the present rates, the quantity of ore sent away from those mines would be three times what it now was. An attempt was made to export sulphur ore from Tipperary, but the attempt had to be given up owing to the railway charges. He thought this was the more to be regretted when they recollected that sulphur ore was brought in vast quantities from Guernsey to Newcastle, and one did not see why it should not pay to bring it from Ireland. In Leitrim, and Limerick also, there were mines which it would pay to work, if the mineral contained in them could be brought to the sea coast at a moderate cost. Again, there would be, no doubt, a vast increase in mining industry in Ireland, if coal could be distributed at a lower price than it was now. For instance, some of the very finest porcelain clays existed in Ireland, and from these earthenware might be made. But Mr. Mallett showed that by proper arrangement and low freights along the lines of railway, coal could be supplied to over three-fifths of Ireland, and to 2,000,000 of its inhabitants at a considerably reduced price. Cheap transit would also permit the working of marble quarries in Kilkenny and Galway, and the slate quarries of Kerry. Mr. Brady, the Fishery Commissioner, stated that the railways had not given those facilities which would induce the fishermen to follow their calling with diligence. He showed that there was more difficulty in sending small parcels from place to place than there was before the introduction of railways into the country, and he pointed out that the difficulty which the fishermen experienced in sending small parcels of fish to the leading centres was one of the chief causes of the almost utter ruin of their industry. Thus every industry and trade in Ireland was choked and paralyzed by the enormous tax imposed for carriage by rail. The consumer paid far more than he should pay above the cost of production and of manufacture, and these charges operated as direct taxes on consumption and as indirect taxes on production. These taxes fell upon everyone, and if they could be got rid altogether, humanity would be relieved of a burden compared to which all the imposts of the Government were “trifles fight as air,” added to which they were aggravated by the high cost of transport. In Ireland, all those who had given their attention to this subject were agreed in thinking that there was but one way in which the tax of transport in that country could be effectually reduced, and that was by the purchase of railways by the State. This opinion was based upon the savings which would be effected by a better system of management and by the savings which would be effected by amalgamation. According to the Report of the Royal Commission, there were in Ireland 56 lines of railway authorized by Act of Parliament. Their average was 48 miles long. Most of these lines had a separate board of directors, separate engineers, solicitors, and secretaries. There were 430 directors, 56 solicitors, 56 secretaries, and upwards of 70 engineers, who absorbed a large portion of the receipts of the lines. He would give a few instances of the proportion per cent of expenditure on some of the lines. The Irish North-Western line was 195 miles long. Its total receipts were £125,981; net receipts, £48,903; working expenses, £77,078; so that the proportion of expenditure to total receipts was 61 per cent. On the Londonderry and Lough Swilly line the working expenditure amounted to 75 per cent on the total receipts. On the Athenry and Ennis Junction the proportion was 79 per cent; on the West Cork it was 80 per cent; and on the Belfast, Holywood, and Bangor it was 90 per cent. By amalgamation and better management Mr. Forbes reckoned that a saving of £120,000 a-year might be effected in the total working expenditure. The Commissioners estimated the saving at £30,000. There were 1,975 miles of railway in Ireland, with net receipts amounting to £1,043,785. In England the value would be 19 or 20 years’ purchase. Taking the value at 22 years’ purchase—an extravagant estimate—the Irish railways would, therefore, be worth £22,963,270. Of course, if the State were the purchaser, the railways would not be bought so cheap as if they were bought in the market, but the highest estimate ever made of the Irish railways was £27,000,000. To that, probably, should be added £2,000,000 more to provide for re-stocking the lines and repairing those lines which had fallen into bad condition. There could not, however, be the slightest doubt that the whole thing could be done for £30,000,000, the interest of which, at ¾ per cent, would be £975,000, and if that sum were substracted from £1,043,785, the net income of Irish railways, there would be a surplus of £68,785, and adding to that the smallest possible estimate of the savings arising from unity of management, the State would have in hand some £100,000 at least with which to begin to reduce the fares. He would add, in reply to those who contended that Government management must be more expensive than company management, that although in the spending Departments of the State, such as the Dockyards, there was a tendency to extravagance, the tendency in the Revenue-making Departments was rather towards stinginess. Nobody could say that the business of the Post Office and of the Telegraphs was managed in an exceptionally expensive manner; and on the Continent of Europe, where about 8,000 miles of railway were in the hands of the Government, it was almost invariably found that State was cheaper than company management. There the average working expenses of the State railways were 16,220f. per kilometre, and of the company’s lines 16,727f. In Prussia, in 1866, there were 4,538 kilometres of railway worked by the State and 4,678 by companies, the gross receipts of the former being 171,555,357f., and of the latter, 148,765,132f., or 15,817f. and 15,007f. respectively per kilometre, the net profits per kilometre being, in the case of the State, 18,869f., and in that of the companies, 18,444f. He might add that it was becoming more and more every day recognized, both in Europe and America, that it was not sound policy to allow the roads of a country to pass into the hands of irresponsible persons, and he had heard only yesterday that a Committee of Congress was sitting in the United States to consider the question of buying up the railways of the Republic. A Committee of the House of Commons, moreover, which sat in 1846, said that the roads of the country were from the very nature of things public concerns, and were as necessary to the people as the air they breathed. If that were so, it furnished a powerful reason why railways should be managed by an authority responsible to the public. If it was said that his argument applied to England as well as to Ireland, his answer was that in England railway property amounted to £500,000,000, while in Ireland the amount to be grappled with amounted to only £30,000,000. He, at all events, ventured to assert with confidence that it would be absolutely impossible to continue for any length of time the system at present existing in Ireland. Public authority would, sooner or later, have to take up the Irish railways, and the longer that step was deferred the greater would be the ultimate difficulty and expense attending it, for five years ago the whole of the railway property in Ireland could have been bought for £5,000,000 less than it could be purchased for now, and he thought that rate of increase would at least be maintained. Some respect, also, he contended, should be paid to Irish opinion. In 1869, 72 Irish Peers and 90 Irish Members of that House signed a declaration, in which they called upon the Government to take some effective measures to reform the Irish railways, and since then resolutions had been carried at meetings of the most influential public bodies in Ireland in favour of the purchase of those railways by the Government; it being, generally speaking, declared by those bodies that any loss which the Imperial Exchequer might sustain by the purchase should be made good by a separate tax on Irish resources. He wished it, then, to be clearly understood that he was not willing that the English and Scotch taxpayer should run the risk of ever having to pay a farthing for the purchase. He should never be a party to asking for anything merely to assist a declining locality, or bolster up a decaying trade, and all he asked was that a comprehensive boon should be conferred for the highest purposes of national welfare, and that as the Queen’s highway of other days was under public authority, so the Government of the country should acquire, take into their own hands, and manage the great iron highway of modern civilization. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
30 April 1874 → Lords Sitting → RAILWAYS, IRELAND—GUARANTEES FROM COUNTY RATES.
OBSERVATIONS.
HL Deb 30 April 1874 vol 218 cc1393-405 1393
rose to call the attention of the House to the mode in which Guarantees from the County Rates to Railways in Ireland are granted or refused. The matter was one of very considerable importance in reference to the extension and completion of the railway system of Ireland by the construction of lines and branches, no small number of which were still required, and remained to be made in the poorer parts of the country. The present seemed an appropriate moment at which to ask the attention of Her Majesty’s Government to the subject, because, as they knew, the other night, in another House, the coup de grâce was given, for a long time to come at least, to the controversy as to the purchase of the Irish railways by the “State. Without going into the merits of that controversy, he would express his opinion that it was a great advantage to Ireland that a decision had been come to on the question. It would have been much to be regretted had the uncertainty on the subject been continued, because such a feeling would have operated to prevent all parties in Ireland from turning their attention to the completion of the railway system.
But he desired to call their Lordships’ attention to the question of guarantees. One means by which railways had been constructed in Ireland was that of a guarantee of a part of the required capital by the county, or a portion of the county, through which it was to pass, to the promoters of the particular line. In the minds of some persons in this country there was a feeling against the guarantee system, and when any proposition made in respect of Ireland was dismissed with the objection that it was “exceptional,” he regarded the objection with suspicion. Things were so exceptional in Ireland that exceptional measures must be applied in that country; and were such measures necessary in any other part of the Empire he would not object to them on the ground of their being exceptional. A considerable number of useful lines of railway had been made in Ireland during the last 20 years, under the system of county or baronial guarantee—lines which but for the guarantee of the county rates would not have come into existence. In Ireland the Grand Jury performed much the same fiscal functions as were discharged by the Quarter Sessions in this country. It consisted of the principal landowners of the county. There were also in Ire-laud bodies called Road Sessions, or Baronial Sessions, or Presentment Sessions; one of which assembled in each barony of the county, and at which a certain number of the ratepayers were associated with magistrates. Those ratepayers were not chosen by popular election—they were selected by the Grand Jury from a number of the highest ratepayers of the county. That state of things, though it did indirectly import the representative element into the taxation, was not satisfactory. He thought it should be made impossible for the magistrates attending ex officio to be present in such numbers as to overpower the ratepayers, which might be the case at present. He thought there ought to be a real representation. He did not, however, go so far as to say that the present state of things was a mere sham or an unreality, or that, as a matter of fact, it did not give considerable control to the ratepayers. He believed it did;—he believed that county expenditure was very seldom forced on the ratepayers by the magistrates, and he did not think it would be possible, after due notice of application, to force on the ratepayers guarantees for Irish railways. Of the lines to which guarantees had been granted within the last 20 years or thereabouts, the Midland Great Western was the most important. The guarantee in that case seemed to have been badly framed, and had not turned out satisfactorily for the counties which gave it; but he was not prepared to say that without it that important railway would have been made so soon. The guarantee in that case amounted to £500,000. Then came a line to which a guarantee of £125,000 was given. It was the Killarney Junction Railway—a very useful line, but he doubted that the required capital could have been raised without the guarantee. The Limerick and Ennis Railway obtained a guarantee for £75,000, the Tralee and Killarney line one for £55,000, and the West Cork one for £66,000. All those lines had been made. Guarantees had been granted to other lines, some of which had been made, while some had not. In none of those cases had there been any opposition which made itself heard before a Committee of this or the other House of Parliament; but he was not aware that any evidence was offered in support of the guarantees, beyond the resolutions of Grand Juries, which had not always been carried unanimously. It was only the year before last that for the first time one of these guarantees was opposed before a Committee of this House—namely, the Athenry and Tuam line. It was petitioned against by a rival company, the Midland Great Western, and two or three powerful landowners. One ground of the opposition was that the guarantee had not been sanctioned by the Presentment Sessions. This was so new an idea that the Treasurer of the County of Mayo said—”Until lately I never heard of the baronies being asked;” and certainly there had been eases of six or seven guarantees in respect of which the assent of Presentment Sessions had not been held to be necessary. However, counsel against the Bill warned the Committee that they would be making a precedent if they passed a guarantee in respect of which there was any want of assent, however small, and the guarantee clauses were thrown out. In 1873 the promoters of the Ennis and West Clare line came before Parliament to increase the rate per cent of their guarantee from 4 to 5. The case was heard by a Committee, of which Mr. Floyer was chairman. It was proved that no resolution of ratepayers had been adopted in favour of the Bill. They did not appear to have been consulted at all, the promoters thinking that the resolution of the Grand Jury was enough; but the objection was held to be fatal, and the Bill was thrown out. He did not find that there had been any other case where a Bill of this kind had been opposed before a Committee, on this ground, until the other day, when the Sligo, Leitrim, and Northern Counties Railway Bill came before a Committee of their Lordships’ House. He had no interest whatever in this Bill, but he must say the line appeared to him to be a useful one as forming a very desirable connection between Ulster and Con-naught, The High Sheriff of Sligo called together two meetings of the ratepayers, and resolutions in favour of the guarantee asked for in the Bill were carried by those meetings. Out of six baronies in the county of Sligo five assented to it, and out of six in the county of Leitrim, five signified their assent. There was no small amount of opposition to it; but according to the case of the promoters, a large majority of the landowners and ratepayers were in favour of the guarantee. Certainly if he had had the honour of a seat on the Committee he should have liked to hear the whole case. What alarmed him and others who looked upon those guarantees as of great importance was, that the Bill had been rejected by a Committee of their Lordships’ House after a larger amount of proof of assent to the guarantee than, perhaps, had ever been given in any other case that had come before Parliament, and upon principles laid down by the Chairman which would be fatal to any conceivable guarantees. They feared lest the rejection of this Bill should form a precedent by which future Committees would feel themselves bound—and that, he thought, would be a great misfortune to some parts of Ireland. It was clear that the time had come for laying down some rides on the subject. His reason for troubling their Lord-slips with it was the hope that those who took an interest in the question of Irish railways, and the Government, would agree with him that the matter required to be looked into and put upon a proper looting. If any amount of dissent on the part of a minority of the ratepayers were to be conclusive against a guarantee, that ought to be laid down in order that parties might be saved the trouble and expense of bringing before Parliament cases to which there was some small amount of opposition. The amount and the kind of assent required ought to be stated if the assent of a majority was to prevail in any case. He thought it would not he difficult to devise rules, whether by Standing Orders or by statute, under which guarantees would be encouraged under proper conditions; but promoters should be required to produce formal proof of assent by the Grand Jury and of assent at the Baronial Sessions, with the number of ratepayers voting for or against. Bills containing a provision for a guarantee should not be passed even as unopposed Bills unless such proofs were given to the satisfaction of that House or the other House of Parliament. Again, he thought this was a case in which the useful system of Provisional Orders, introduced of late years, might well he applied. He did not see why the Department of the Government which issued those Provisional Orders should not, if it appeared necessary, hold a local inquiry, and in that way obtain information on which Parliament might form a sound opinion. This was a time at which it would be wrong to discourage the attempts of districts in Ireland to provide themselves with improved railway accommodation; and he therefore hoped that the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the President of the Board of Trade would look into this matter carefully, and turn their attention to devising a system which, while it would give the means of security to the ratepayers, would at the same time encourage the granting of guarantees for well laid-out and useful lines of railway.
TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND) (ATHENRY AND TUAM RAILWAY) BILL.HC Deb 08 December 1890 vol 349 cc709-10 709
On Motion of Mr. Attorney General, Bill to confirm an Order in Council of the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council in Ireland, relating to the Athenry and Tuam (Extension to Clare-morris) Railway, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Jackson.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 157.]
T. M. HEALY: Is there any objection to the Bill being read a second time now?
W. H. SMITH: As far as the Government are concerned, they are extremely anxious to pass the Bill without delay.
MADDEN: having gone to the Bill Office, on returning, said: There is no copy of the Bill in the House, and I 710 must, therefore, postpone the further stages of the Bill until tomorrow.
SECOND READING.HL Deb 30 January 1891 vol 349 c1385 1385
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK:
My Lords, the object of this Bill is to confirm an Order of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Council relating to the Athenry and Tuam and Clare Morris Railway. It provides for the extension of a line to Clare Morris. It has passed without opposition through the other House of Parliament, and has come up to your Lordships, and I trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o’clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o’clock.
COMMISSION.HL Deb 10 February 1891 vol 350 c289 289
The following Bill received the Royal Assent:—
Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) (Athenry and Tuam Railway).
ROYAL ASSENT.HC Deb 10 February 1891 vol 350 cc297-8 297
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and being returned;—
SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—
Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) (Athenry and Tuam Extension to Claremorris Railway) Confirmation Act, 1891.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.HC Deb 23 May 1892 vol 4 c1510 1510
That they have agreed to—Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order [Abbotsbury, &c] Bill; Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order [Midland and South Western Junction, &c] Bill;
Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order [Taff Vale, &c.] Bill; Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order [Athenry and Ennis Junction, &c.] Bill; Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order [East London, &c] Bill, with Amendments.
COMMISSION.HL Deb 20 June 1892 vol 5 cc1501-3 1501
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—
Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Athenry and Ennis Junction, &c).
SECOND READING.HC Deb 27 November 1893 vol 18 cc1890-1 1890
Order for Second Reading read.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (SIR J. T. HIBBERT,) Oldham:
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I wish just to explain the object of its two clauses. One is to extend the time for the repayment of loans for lunatic asylums. At the present time a loan can only be taken for a term of 20 years. It is expected that a considerable amount will be expended during the next year or two upon lunatic asylums in Ireland. The Treasury have thought it desirable to place the loans for lunatic asylums on the same footing as those for sanitary purposes. At present the loans for lunatic 1891 asylums are for a term not exceeding 20 years at 3½ per cent., but we propose to place them on the same footing as those for sanitary purposes, and to take powers to make them bear interest at 3½ per cent., repayable in 35 years; 3¾ per cent., repayable in 40 years; and 4 per cent., repayable in 50 years. Taking it at 3½ per cent, for 35 years, it would reduce the annual amount payable per£100 from £7 0s. 8¾d. to £5, and so will be a considerable help to ratepayers who may be rated for this purpose. The other part of the Bill is in respect to a remission of 1 per cent, interest for the Athenry and Ennis Railway, which is being purchased by the Waterford Railway Company. I may say that the sum which was lent to the Athenry Company by the Public Works Loan Board in England, amounting to £59,000, was lent in the year 1867 and 1868, and since that period—in fact, about 10 or 12 years ago—the rate of interest for railway loans in Ireland made by the Irish Board of Works was reduced from 5 per cent, to 4 per cent. This railway has been sold to the Waterford Company, and an appeal was made by the Athenry and Ennis Company that some concession should be granted with respect to the payment of interest. The late Government consented to a certain concession, which could not take effect because Parliamentary powers were not then obtained for the sale, and we have on the matter again coming up thought right to make the concession described in the Bill. As the loans are now made in Ireland for all railway purposes at the rate of 4 per cent., we think it only fair and just to this company, which is paying off its debt in full, that they should have the advantage of paying the lower rate of interest which is now paid by other companies. It seems to the Treasury that this is a fair arrangement, and it is one which I hope my right hon. Friend opposite, who I think has had something to do with this question, will fully understand and, I trust, be able to support. § Motion made, and Question proposed, “That the Bill be now read a second tiMR.”—(Sir J. T. Hibbert.)
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
COMMITTEE.HC Deb 28 November 1893 vol 18 cc2001-3 2001
Considered in Committee.
“That it is expedient to authorise the remission of part of the Interest on certain Loans made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the Athenry and Ennis Junction Railway Company, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend certain provisions relating to Local Loans in Ireland.”
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.):
I hope we may have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman upon this point, because I confess I think the House ought always to look with great suspicion upon these remissions on loans for the construction of railways in Ireland. It has been a course frequently adopted, practically under compulsion, because it has been impossible to obtain repayments of the loans. The circumstances in this case, if I am rightly informed, tire rather peculiar. This was a loan made in 1867 to the Athenry and Ennis Railway, and only this year, if my information is correct, the Athenry and Ennis Railway was purchased by the Waterford and Limerick Railway for the sum of £180,000. Why’ we are to make a remission on the loan made to the Athenry and Ennis Railway in the face of that purchase I really do not know. 2002 At any rate, I think the matter requires some explanation from Her Majesty’s Government—first, as to whether that purchase actually took place; whether the money has been paid; and, if so, why we have not got the proper share of it due to the Treasury of this country? It appears to me that there arc certain persons connected with these matters, both in England and Ireland, who are very ready to take advantage of the Treasury whenever they come to have made a purchase, and calmly pocket the remission which the Committee is asked to sanction now.
THE SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,) Oldham:
I gave a very full explanation of the objects of this proposal last night, and I need not enter very fully into the subject now. I must say that I think if the right hon. Gentleman knew as much of the matter as I do, he would not be so disposed to blame what is proposed to be done by the present Government. We are, to a considerable extent, in this proposal carrying out the agreement which was made by the late Government. Therefore, if any blame is to be attached to the proposal, the blame is just as much to be given to the late Government as it is to the present Government. The facts of the case are these: This loan was made to the Athenry and Ennis Company, as the right hon. Gentleman states, in 1867, by the Public Works Loan Commissioners of England. At, that time loans for railways were always made at 5 per cent, interest. But 10½ years ago—that is, in the year 1883— the rate of interest for railway loans made by the Irish Board of Works was, by a Treasury Minute, altered from 5 to 4 per cent. The Athenry and Ennis Railway has been purchased by the Waterford and Limerick Railway, and an arrangement was made some years ago by the late Government that when the sale of the railway was completed the Government would be prepared to forego a portion of the interest, which would have had an effect equivalent to reducing the interest over the whole term to about 4¾ per cent. As all the other railways in Ireland to which loans are made only pay 4 per cent, interest, the Treasury and the Public Works 2003 Loan Commissioners have thought it right, and fair, and proper in this case that there should be some reduction. There was a fair claim for asking that a reduction should be made to 4 per. cent., the rate paid by other railways in Ireland, therefore, the Treasury agreed, when the transfer took place, that they would be prepared to reduce the rate from 5 to 4 per cent. I ought to say this: Much has been said about loans to Local Authorities and to railways in Ireland, but this has been one of the few cases where there has been no loss to the British Exchequer. The principal will be paid; there will be no loss; therefore, it is thought that we are but dealing justly and fairly in making this proposal, and I feel confident the Government will have the support of the House.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (NO. 4) [REMISSION].HC Deb 29 November 1893 vol 19 c52 52
Resolution reported. ‘That it is expedient to authorise the remission of part of the Interest on certain Loans made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the Athenry and Ennis Junction Railway Company, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend certain provisions relating to Local Loans in Ireland.’ § Resolution agreed to..
TUAM AND CLAREMORRIS RAILWAY.HC Deb 26 August 1895 vol 36 cc786-7 786
D. KILBRIDE (Galway, N.):
I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade—(1) whether he is aware that, on the Tuam and Claremorris Railway, there is a public level crossing about half a mile from Milltown Station, and no person in charge, although, according to the Government Arbitrator’s award, the Waterford and Limerick Railway 787 Company was bound to erect a caretaker’s cottage, which they have failed to carry out, and that an old man narrowly escaped being cut down there, and several sheep were killed there on another occasion; (2) whether he is aware that the only means adopted by the Company to preserve life and property there is, that the stationmaster at Milltown, being provided with a telescope, covers the crossing before a train leaves, and if he spies cattle on the line he warns the driver; when the latter comes up to the animals he comes off the engine and drives them off; and, (3) whether the Company will be compelled to adopt adequate means to prevent accident in the future, and save the public from serious danger? § THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,) Croydon The hon. Member’s question is not very precise, but I have communicated with the Waterford and Limerick, and the Athenry and Tuam Companies. They both state that the crossing which they believe to be in question is merely an ordinary accommodation crossing, and the Athenry Company add that the adjacent occupiers refused to accept keys for the gates. The Companies deny all knowledge of the circumstances referred to in the latter part of the first, and in the second paragraphs of the question. I shall be happy to show the hon. Member the replies, and if he will let me know what crossing he refers to, and let me have any other information in regard to it, I shall be glad to cause further inquiry to be made.
PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION (MUNICIPAL TRADING).HC Deb 01 March 1899 vol 67 c918 918
Petitions for inquiry by a Select Committee;—From Sheffield;—Blackburn (two);—Drybrook;—Falkirk;—Cork;—Bandon and South Coast Railway Company;—Dublin;—South Yorkshire Junction Railway Company;—Oxford;—Glasgow;—Stroud;—Penrikyber;—Westminster;—London Chamber of Commerce;—Birmingham and Aston;—Lambeth;—Southampton;—Lincoln;—Hampton Court;—Leeds (two);—South Shields;—London;—Liverpool; Manchester;—Newcastle upon Tyne;— National Retail Jewellers’ Association;—Lanarkshire;—Park Hall;—Ilford;—Northern Counties Federation of Building Trade Employers;—Athenry and Tuam;—West Clare and South Clare Railway Companies;—South Essex;—Sunderland;—and, Bristol; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH RAILWAY AMALGAMATION.HC Deb 03 March 1899 vol 67 cc1226-7 1226
PATRICK O’BRIEN (Kilkenny):
I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that there is now before Parliament a Bill promoted by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, which proposes to amalgamate under that Company certain other railways and give that company an absolute 1227 monopoly of all the railway systems in thirteen counties of Ireland, comprising about half that country, he will procure and have laid upon the Table of the House a Return of all rates and fares chargeable by the Great Southern and “Western Railway Company at present for passengers and the various classes of merchandise, agricultural products, minerals, stock, and all other classes of goods to all places in Ireland and Great Britain?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,) Croydon:
It would be quite impossible to lay upon the Table a return of all rates and fares actually charged by this Railway Company. There are, no doubt, hundreds of thousands of rates contained in hundreds of huge rate books distributed through the country. The maximum powers of charge can, however, be ascertained and will be found in the Acts of Parliament relating to the Company. I would refer the honourable Member to a Return presented to Parliament in 1888 and to the Railway Rates and Charges No. 26 (Athenry and Ennis) Order Confirmation Act, 1892. § MR. PATRICK O’BRIEN Arising out of the at answer, is the right honourable Gentleman aware of the fact that at present the Government is represented in the Clearing House at Dublin, and cannot they get the information from their representative before it is decided to give half of Ireland into the hands of monopolists?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE:
The honourable Member is mixing up other points with his Question. In his Question he asks whether I will lay a return of rates on the Table of the House. I have told him that, as this means a return of hundreds of thousands of rates, it is quite impossible to give it him.
PATRICK O’BRIEN But is the Government not represented—
SPEAKER Order, order! The honourable Member must give notice of any further Question.
PATRICK O’BRIEN I hope the Chief Secretary will take notice. I intend to question him on the subject.
14 March 1899 → Commons Sitting → GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN, AND WATERFORD, LIMERICK, AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL.
SECOND READING.HC Deb 14 March 1899 vol 68 cc723-62 723
(By Order.)—Order for Second Reading road.
Motion made, and Question proposed— ‘That the Bill be now read a second time.’
Amendment proposed— ‘To leave out the word now, and at the end of the Question to add the words upon this day six months.”—(Mr. J. Redmond.)’
I do not intend to follow honourable Members who have already addressed the House into large questions touching the interests of the South of Ireland involved in the Measure. I speak only for my own constituency in the county of Mayo. My constituents have requested me to give expression to their feelings, and to voice their interests in connection with this Bill. From that point of view I appeal to the House to read the Bill a second time, and send it to a Select Committee. The honourable Member for Waterford, knowing what the feeling of Mayo is, alluded to the fact that the Members for Mayo would probably take up that position. I do not express any opinion as to the effect of this Bill on the traffic of the South of Ireland. That question has been studied by the honourable Members for Waterford and Cork with a thoroughness 747 to which I can lay no claim. On the contrary, I abstained from attempting to get upon the Hybrid Committee last year, or from suggesting that any Member from the West should go upon it, because I did not consider that the West of Ireland was so closely concerned in the matter. But in the proposal now before the House the county of Mayo, and, indeed, the province of Connaught, is deeply concerned, because, while it is true that this Bill affects the traffic of the South, it is a large Measure concerning the interests of Connaught as well as those of the South and Centre, if in a less degree. I would direct the attention of the Chief Secretary to the letter of the manager of the Midland and Great Western, which has already been referred to by the honourable Member for Water-ford, because, so far as I am instructed by my constituents, it is mainly because of this suggested alternative scheme that they are prepared to support this Bill. The Midland and Great Western would probably absorb the portion of the Limerick and Waterford line if the present system fell through. What our people are afraid of is that if this scheme is defeated by Parliament, the Waterford and Limerick system will collapse, and portions of it will be picked up by other companies, and that the portion between Athenry and Sligo will come into the hands of the Midland and Great Western. That would be a great disaster to the people of Mayo and Connaught generally, who now have the means of having their produce brought down to Waterford in competition with the Southern and Great Western. In this instance one is compelled to speak frankly. I am speaking simply for my constituents. This is a question of great perplexity and difficulty, but I hope the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee, and that a representative of the province of Connaught will have a seat upon the Committee. I agree with the honourable Member for Cork that it is necessary that there should be proper protection afforded the public against any increase in the fares and goods rates, and, in the belief that this can be done, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick’s):
At this late hour of the evening I have no desire to intervene at any great length in this Debate. I have always interested myself in railway affairs generally, while the general disposition of honourable Members is to take a personal, a narrow, or a constituents’ view of any railway scheme brought before the House. It appears to me that the proposed amalgamation means practical ruin to trade in the South-west of Ireland. When amalgamation of railway lines is proposed in England there is the Board of Trade to protect trade interests. But there is no branch of the Board of Trade in Ireland. The Railway Commissioners also protect the English public, but the name of the Railway Commission is almost unknown in Ireland, and Ireland has not the same safeguards against the railway rates and charges with respect to amalgamation which exist, and which are easily obtainable, in England. To my mind any process of amalgamation which is granted in Ireland will make it more difficult to obtain what is really the cure for the situation, and that is the nationalisation of the Irish railways. In Ireland the state of the railway system is absolutely exceptional, for they are neither State-owned nor State-managed, nor is there any competition. We are in a different position economically to that of the railways in England, and I entirely agree with what the honourable Member for Cork said, that there is no room for two parallel lines of railways from one city to another. But if this amalgamation is passed our position will be worse than it was before. The right honourable Member for the University said the Great Southern and Western were paying from £7,000 to £10,000 a year for the sake of keeping up a second railway. Will any Gentleman tell me, if this amalgamation takes place, that this process of giving a certain amount of money to obtain traffic will cease? I think, as far as I am acquainted with the commercial ways of the English people, they never give away anything without they are paid for it; and I do not think these companies will give anything to the Irish people unless they have a quid pro quo. I hold no narrow view upon this question from my constituents, but what I want is to have this railway question brought before public opinion, and public attention focussed upon it, and if the course suggested by the honourable Member for Mayo is correct, then I have no objection whatever. This idea of the amalgamation of railways in Ireland should be closely watched, because our experience of Irish railways is that they are the most expensive, the worst managed, and the dearest to travel upon in the world. Under these circumstances, I would beseech this House to be very careful in any amalgamation scheme which is introduced, and it must be remembered that we have no competition in Ireland. There has been a good den said in the course of this Debate with respect to the different districts through which these railways pass. The honourable Member for Cork, who represents a very large amount of public opinion, expressed certain views, and I am not in a position to differ from his assertion; but I do say that the vast majority of this House are against railway amalgamation. I have myself received letters from various merchants in different parts of Ireland, and I do say unhesitatingly, and without fear of contradiction, that unless this amalgamation is carried out in a proper way we ought to vote against it. If we are to have amalgamation, it should be public, and it should be responsible, and it should not be left to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company alone, but public opinion should have some share in the management. I want to know from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or from those promoting this Bill, are we going to establish a system of trusts, monopolies, and “corners” such as exist in America? In America they have competition, but in Ireland you have no such thing. If you go to any of the great cities in America you find parallel lines, brought five or six times over, from one great city to another. The result is that there is a very keen competition. Of course, I know that in Ireland you must accommodate yourself to circumstances that exist, and we do not want in Ireland either “railway kings” or great corporations in the shape of trusts, which can squeeze the vitals out of the commerce altogether in the districts through which these railways run. I do not wish to detain the House, but I think this is a matter which should be discussed at greater length than the House can afford time at present; but I would appeal to those honourable Members who are so much in favour of amalgamation to remember the different circumstances which exist in Ireland to what exist in England. As I have said before, we have no competition, and there is very little State control, and if the powerful Irish railway company gets hold of these 13 counties out of the 32 counties in Ireland, when the benefits promised come to be analysed they will be found to be very different. I have had a great deal of experience in my capacity as president of a large trading association of the Irish railways, and I know how they treat that branch of the trade with which I am connected. And now I would address myself more particularly to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I know that the right honourable Gentleman is doing his best, but if he places too much reliance upon railway directors and grants them amalgamation, without having proper guarantees, the condition of things will be made worse than it is. There are only two ways of managing railways, and they are either by amalgamation or competition. Now we have no competition, and, if we are to have amalgamation, there must be certain conditions introduced with regard to the reduction of rates. Soma honourable Members may say that this new company will not be allowed to raise the rates. Well, the rates are too high now, and we want a reduction of rates and proper facilities for carrying it out. We want the trains, and especially the third-class carriage accommodation, improved. I have drawn attention to this matter before in this House, and I take this opportunity of again appealing to honourable Members, and I say that there is no country in Europe where the accommodation provided for third-class passengers is so wretched as in Ireland. I travelled up-to-day from Liverpool to London in a third-class carriage, and—
Great Britain.
HC Deb 20 August 1909 vol 9 cc1751-2W 1751W
No grants were made from the Exchequer in 1908–9 or in the current financial year for light railways. Advances under
| 1908–1909 (Actual Expenditure). | 1909–1910 (as per Estimate). | Locality to which Granted. | At request of Local Body. | Authority responsible for Expenditure. | ||||||||||||
| Light Railways. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d | ||||||||||
| Loughrea and Attymon | 804 | 13 | 4 | 810 | 0 | 0 | Co. Galway | County Council | Board of Works. | |||||||
| Athenry and Tuam Extension to Claremorris | 742 | 13 | 7 | 750 | 0 | 0 | Co. Mayo | County Council | Board of Works | |||||||
