Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Dec 1924

Vol. 3 No. 26

RAILWAYS (DIRECTORATE) BILL, 1924. (SECOND STAGE.)

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I see now that the Minister is here, and we can, therefore, go on with the Railways (Directorate) Bill.

I rise now because I see no one else prepared to speak in the matter. I regret that Ministers have made this proposal, because I think they must have yielded to the difficulties of the situation. There were, certainly, difficulties to be overcome. They yielded also, I suppose, to the protest of the people interested in the railways. I think it is very unfortunate they did so, because they have the peculiar talent of doing everything they can think of that damages their own position, the Government position, and that of the Free State. What is this proposal?—the proposal is to nominate a member of a railway company in England, one, probably, of the strongest railways in England, controlling the whole Western sea-board of England, on the amalgamated company as a director. This company is to be allowed to nominate, without asking us, anyone they choose to be on the Board of Directors of the United Railways.

That is the proposal that has been made. I know of no proposal that is more likely to raise hostility in the Free State to the Government of the Free State itself than the proposal that a company from across the water should be allowed to interfere in our railways and in our industries. This proposal is one that Ireland has been hostile to from the very beginning. English industries had control of this country before Grattan's Parliament. It was that control that brought up the first rising of any Irishman against them. It was that control that brought the Irish Volunteers to march through Dublin with a notice: "Free trade or...." It was to prevent that, that Arthur Griffith spent his whole life. His whole policy was based on industrialism in Ireland, and month after month, and week after week, he proclaimed in his papers his hostility to the influence of English industry and English transport in Ireland. Arthur Griffith had more, perhaps, than any one else to say in founding the Free State. He had more to do, perhaps, than most other men in founding the Free State and in placing in office the Government that is now in power.

The first thing the Government does is to go back on the whole of Arthur Griffith's life work, introducing bit by bit—small, perhaps, at first, but more will come afterwards—English influence into Irish life and Irish work, thus returning to them all that we gained in the sufferings in recent years. It has gone back and brought back what was done in the past by the British, and that is the smothering of our industries in favour of those of the British. I do not know why the Government has brought up this matter. They seem to be tempted by the offer of £20,000. Are they going to sacrifice their principles for £20,000? I do not mean to say that the Government has got any part of the £20,000, but the railway company are to get the £20,000, and for the sake of that £20,000 they sacrifice their own convictions. All the members of the Government were followers of Arthur Griffith and Sinn Fein, and the very essence of Sinn Fein was opposed to this. The very idea of Sinn Fein was control of our own industries. Their motto was: "We must not allow any control from over the water." What does the Government say? "Oh," they say, "it is a very little thing, one director amongst fourteen." It is, as the girl said of the little baby, a very little thing, but she ought not to have had it. One illegitimate baby amongst fourteen is not very much, one illegitimate director amongst fourteen is not very much.

But I see in the distance a long line of illegitimate directors succeeding. Let us see what this £20,000 is given for. Let us consider it for a moment. Is it for the good of Ireland this was given? If it is for the good of Ireland, if it is for the advantage of Ireland, there will be no necessity to give it. Is it for the good of Ireland and England? No. If it were for the good of England and Ireland, we would get it without that £20,000. Therefore, I say it must be for the good of England, and it must be that England should have certain advantages over Ireland that we are not otherwise prepared to give. It is a bribe of £20,000 for that purpose. If this were a question of one railway against another, I would have nothing to say against it. It is a question of English against Irish interests; that is what it means. Otherwise there would have been no question of £20,000 about it. It is a bribe. Cover it up as well as they can, it is a bribe to get certain concessions that would help English industries and English railways. While England can control Irish industries Ireland cannot prosper. Everybody knows the effect of present-day control of industry. If we turn to America we find at once that the Oil Trust in America, as their very first step, bought up the American railways. Then they put on whatever rates they wished, so as to crush any opposition to themselves. Whoever controls the railways in Ireland can control Irish industries.

The Government tell us it is only one amongst fourteen. But what sort of a one? He is one who has got the whole wealth, the whole influence and the whole pressure of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway behind him. That is what he has got behind him. You may remember the story of Micky Free, when he was paying money to his priest for the saving of his father's soul to get him out of hell or purgatory. He went on paying the money and finally he rather kicked against this and was not inclined to pay any more money. But a certain priest in Spain told him that one more Mass was necessary to get his father out, as his father had his shoulders just inside the door of heaven, and one more Mass would get him in. Micky Free said: "I know my father well and if he once gets his shoulders inside the door, the divil and his angels will not keep him out of that." I do not think the Minister and his agents will be able to keep these English railways from prejudicially affecting Irish industries. The Minister said to me that I thought very little about my own countrymen if one man against fourteen, if one Englishman against fourteen Irishmen could manage to get the better of the fourteen.

I know a good deal of my own countrymen, and I know that in a good many walks of life, in campaigns and battles, that an Englishman could not beat him. But I know that in diplomacy and intrigue, and in trickery, and in all the dark and devious ways in which success is gained in this world, we are mere children. If it had not been so, we would not have for seven hundred years, English rule in this country. I am afraid that in recent times we have not progressed very much in these things. Under Sinn Fein I thought we had given up these things, but I am now afraid that we are going back again. Some people will say that one director in fourteen will not help a great deal. How did England get her control in India? By small methods. By going round to a Rajah and saying: "Will you allow me to set up a little shop here?" They went on in that way until they got strong enough, and in that way, step by step, they acquired the whole of India. That is what they are doing in Egypt now. They have put in a puppet Ministry of their own in order to do what they want. I am not blaming them in this matter. They look after their own interests. We, unfortunately, are only bits of putty in their hands. They mould us just as they wish. If Egypt sold its birthright, it sold it for more than £20,000. They got a good deal for it.

What is the advantage that the English Government and the English railways are trying to get now? What sort of concession are they looking for? Their rates for goods to Irish towns. I am not a railway-man but I have a pretty good idea of it. That has been the way they worked in the past. The rates from Manchester to Athlone or some Western town, are less than they are from Dublin to that town. In that way, English goods can be transported to Athlone or some Western town at a less rate than Dublin goods can be landed there. That is the concession. That is the sort of thing they want; nothing else. It is the key to the whole system. Senators may remember that when the discussion regarding the Railway Bill was on some months ago, Senator Love brought forward a resolution to the effect that such a thing would not be allowed, that they would not be allowed to have through rates that would crush Irish industries. These are the things they want.

I will read for you an extract from the Daily Mail of a few days ago:—

"The struggle for control of the Free State water power is being conducted with renewed vigour.

It is apparent now that the real issue is not between the Liffey and the Shannon as rival sources of power, but between the German firm of Siemens Schuckert and certain important financial interests in London and Dublin. Sir Halford Mackinder, who was Chairman of the Imperial Shipping Board, is understood to have an interest in the exploitation of the Liffey, and several other British financiers are determined to combat the acquisition by Germany of an economic stranglehold on the Free State."

If Germany is to get a stranglehold on the Free State in that way, England will also have a stranglehold if she succeeds now. England is much nearer and more capable of holding on to that stranglehold. I am not dealing with that particular question now, but it is exactly the same as the railways. This railway wants to get a stranglehold on the industries of Ireland. That is what these foreigners want. They had it, they lost it, and they want to regain it.

I do not know if Senator Moore has formally moved the rejection of the Bill. If he has not done so, I beg to do so. Nobody in the Seanad believes that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway wish to get the nomination of a directorship on the Irish railways for any purpose but to serve the greater interests with which that man must be associated, namely, the interests of the London, Midland and Scottish Company, and the interests of their clients, the English traders. Previous to the Great War there were a good many lines of communication out of Ireland, controlled by Irishmen, such as the City of Cork Steampacket Company and many others, all of which have been bought by British firms. These services still have Irish names but they are owned and controlled by English capitalists. I do not complain of the Englishman's point of view.

When the recent Railway Bill was passed, I thought that at least a Central Board would be appointed which would study Irish interests, and be sufficiently strong, by reason of the amalgamation, to stand up and retaliate on the through rates and with the big English interests. Evidently the London, Midland and Scottish Company thought the same thing, as we find now, in consideration of some sum which was lent to the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company, they had certain rights on the Dublin and South Eastern Railway, and they seek by the Bill which the Irish Government has introduced, to transmute the directorateship of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway into a directorship of every line in Southern Ireland. Does any sane man believe for a moment that the move by the London, Midland and Scottish Company can be in any other interests but the interests of the London, Midland and Scottish Company's shareholders, the English traders and their supporters? It is preposterous to suggest that there are rights, advantages and concessions such as are set out in the Bill. It is preposterous to contend that these could be in the interests of the Irish trader or of the Irish railway shareholders. £20,000 to nominate a director for every railway in Ireland over which we have any control! What is the capital of the joint railways in Ireland compared to, say £20,000 or £100,000 yearly, or in comparison with the amounts that the Irish public have subscribed for the railways.

With the transport of Irish goods in Ireland rates do not count so much. Let us take such an article as Guinness's porter. It is put on a flat rate all over Ireland, no trader is prejudiced—even though the rate is high and that consumers have to pay a little more—because competitors pay exactly the same, even though the rate may be high and exorbitant. When you come to cross-Channel through rates, where Irish produce, butter, bacon, eggs, cattle and such things come into competition with the produce of Denmark, Sweden, Finland and France, the higher rate immediately strikes you. For example, you can get condensed milk cheaper from Italy to London than from Limerick to London. Is it in the interests of the London, Midland and Scottish Company that that rate should be reduced?

We are told, and it is held out as a sort of a bogey, that the tourist traffic of this country would be ruined if we did not assent to the Bill. The tourist traffic in this country in comparison with our agricultural interests is small, and I think it is always likely to be small. I would like to encourage tourist traffic, but I do not think it is in the power of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway to ruin that traffic. It is in their own interests to support it. Ireland is sometimes, perhaps, a slightly perilous country. Sometimes it may be many other things, but it is always interesting. It is never dull, and has managed to acquire such publicity in the Press that people in calm and lucid intervals like to have a look at it. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway may suggest that they will crab the tourist traffic but they would not do so as it would not be in their own interests.

Of course, this director is only one amongst a great number, but I ask the Seanad to remember that he will be a trained and highly scientific railway man, an ad hoc man, who will have behind him, when any question crops up, the whole technical resources of this gigantic corporation. I see that Section 3 of the Bill says:

"The London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company may at any time and from time to time withdraw its nomination of any person to be a director."

Why? Because some important question may arise, on which this man may not be sufficiently well up, and they will produce another expert for the time being. It may be that the withdrawal of this subsidy, loan, or whatever it is to the Dublin and South Eastern Railway—I am sorry the Minister did not enlighten us on it as, I think, he should have done so—may very prejudicially affect the shareholders of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway. I am one of those who believe that if the Irish railways did not pay what they paid before the war to their shareholders, it would be tantamount to an act of national bankruptcy. The Government have now taken, fathered and promoted or put through a Bill that was before us recently—and the Minister piloted it with great ability—and they cannot divest themselves of responsibility to the railways or to the shareholders. If this subsidy of £20,000 was needed for the Dublin and South Eastern Railway, or any other railway similarly situated, which had a subsidy, which could be withdrawn by legislation, this country is not so utterly poor that some financial device could not be resorted to, if necessary the Central Fund, though the Minister for Finance would not approve of it. Some such device as that could be availed of to make up this amount, and so relieve the Dublin and South Eastern Railway from the financial liability inflicted upon it by the Act which the Government introduced.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I take it that Senator Moore is moving the rejection and that you are seconding him.

Might I intervene for a moment in this debate? It began very peacefully, and at first I did not think we would have a debate at all. But now it has developed on most interesting lines. At the outset I would like to take the Seanad into my confidence and to say that my concern in this Bill is, firstly and mainly, the interests of the shareholders of the Dublin, South Eastern Railway Company. The Government, in the exercise of its undoubted right and in the exercise of its good discretion, decided upon a reorganisation of the railway system in this country. That method of reorganising the railway system has been subjected to continuous criticism, and for nearly two years we have had long leading articles in the newspapers and speeches made about it at great length. The Government have brought in their Bill and have passed it through the other House, and they have maintained the same position as when they began. I have held during the whole of this controversy that if the Government find it their duty in the interests of the country to promote certain railway legislation, they are quite entitled to do so, but I have claimed all along that this change should not be made at the sole cost of the stockholders of the Dublin, South Eastern Railway. It is a matter of public knowledge that for many years past there has been a reciprocal, amicable, and, to both Companies, a thoroughly satisfactory arrangement in operation between the Dublin, South Eastern Company and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. That arrangement meant to the Dublin and South Eastern Company something like £25,000 a year. The Government have seen fit to remodel the railway situation in this country. That payment of £25,000 a year to the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company has been placed in jeopardy, and the Government, in the exercise of their undoubted discretion and power, have made an arrangement with the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company under which that £25,000 is to continue. That, of course, is a matter of very great importance to the stockholders of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company. The tribunal, which is at present engaged on a rearrangement of the details of railway amalgamation, has stated that if this arrangement is not carried out the cost of it will fall on the stockholders of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway. I maintain, as I did from the beginning, that whatever this arrangement is to cost the railway systems generally, the sole cost of that should not fall on the shoulders of my unfortunate shareholders.

This Bill is the result of an arrangement made between the Government and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. Under it this payment of £25,000 a year is to be continued. The condition of that continuing payment on the part of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, is that they shall appoint a director to the amalgamated Irish Railways Board. That, after all, is a matter for the Government. The Government has decided upon this programme. The Government have made this arrangement with the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, and obviously it is the Government's business to see that this arrangement is carried through. As the representative of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company, I am, of course, bound to support the Government in the matter. My friends on both sides have spoken about the dire effects on the country if the London, Midland and Scottish Railway is allowed to appoint a director on the Board of the amalgamated Irish railways. Might I ask Senators to look at this point from another angle. After all, these business matters have to be decided on more or less business lines. If they are not decided on business lines they are not a success. We cannot forget that under the present railway arrangements in Great Britain, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company control every single port on the west of Scotland and England, with the exception of Fishguard.

And Cardiff.

Cardiff and Fishguard. Through these ports the Irish trade and the British trade of Ireland passes day after day. Tourist traffic which is of importance to some industries in this country, passes through these ports and the ordinary passenger traffic passes through these ports. It does seem to me that possibly it might not be amiss to the Irish import and export trade generally, or even as regards the Irish tourist traffic, to have something in the nature of a liaison officer between the Board of the Irish Amalgamated Railways and the Board of the London, Midland and Scottish. I think that perhaps Senators who spoke in opposition to the Bill might look at the question from this angle and it may be that they would see that there is not so much in the objections which have been raised against this Bill—very forcible objections and very ably put. I must congratulate my friends Senator Dowdall and Senator Colonel Moore for the very interesting speeches they have delivered. Possibly when the Seanad realises that the entire traffic passing through these ports is controlled by this railway, it might make for friendly relations and satisfactory working. I understand that the tribunal will fix rates, so that the objection as to through rates might be met. I think if the Seanad will consider these matters fully, they will see there are no very vital reasons as to why this Bill should be thrown out. I say the shareholders of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company are entitled to be considered and I trust the Seanad will deal with them in a fair way.

I rise to support the motion before the House for the rejection of the Bill.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

This is a direct negative. Those who are opposed to the Bill should simply make their speeches in opposition to the Bill, and I will take a vote on the question that the Bill be read a second time; otherwise I will be putting a direct negative.

I oppose this Bill for three reasons. The first reason is that I object to the principle which underlies this Bill. That principle is that the Government proposes by statute to confer a right on a foreign company to sit on the board of management of practically all the railways of the country. I oppose it also because of the fact that if the amalgamated company thought it was necessary or even to their interests to have a director of the London, Midland and Scottish Company on their board, they have the power to do so without conferring a right on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company by statute. Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde has told us that for years there were harmonious relations between the London, Midland and Scottish Company and the Dublin, South Eastern Company, and that the London, Midland and Scottish Company for years had given the equivalent of £25,000 a year to the Dublin, South Eastern Company because of certain facilities they were afforded. I suggest that the directors of the amalgamated company, if they think, in their wisdom, that it is necessary or good business for them to co-opt a director of the London, Midland and Scottish Company, if the value they receive from the London, Midland and Scottish Company warrants them in electing or coopting a director from the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company on their board of directors, they have perfect liberty to do so. Therefore I take it that if the facilities or whatever was given by the London, Midland and Scottish Company to the Dublin South Eastern Company is still continuing, it will be a matter for the board of directors of the amalgamated company to consider whether or not they would think it wise to co-opt a director from the London, Midland and Scottish Company. I also oppose the Bill because of the fact that I object to a director of the London, Midland and Scottish Company being forced by statute on the directorate of the amalgamated company, and for the reason that the London, Midland and Scottish Company pay their clerical staff less than is paid by the companies in the Saorstát. Some time ago there was a dispute between the clerical staffs and the railway companies in this country regarding the rates of wages. It went before the Railway Wages Tribunal and the Railway Wages Tribunal did not come to an agreement, but the chairman of the tribunal, Mr. Justice Wylie, was appointed arbitrator to settle the difference between them. An award was made which applied to all the railway companies, but the London, Midland and Scottish Company have refused to put into operation the terms of the award that has been made in the case of the other companies. I object on principle to confer the right by statute on the representative of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway to use his bad influence on the directorate of the amalgamated company to worsen the terms of the employment of the employees of the amalgamated company.

I rise to make one remark in regard to Senator Farren's statement as to the salaries of the clerical staff of the London, Midland and Scottish Company. They form a mere handful of the employees. They are members of the English Union, and if Senator Farren imagines for a moment that the London, Midland and Scottish Company are going to alter the whole order of things for the sake of the few employees they have here, I want to tell him he is mistaken. It is just a question, while the wages may be the same, whether the employees of the London, Midland and Scottish may not be somewhat better off than the Irish railway employees. I wonder would a man, on retiring from the services of an Irish railway, get an allowance of a year and a half's salary in addition to 50 per cent. of his wages for the rest of his natural life. The employees of this company have also the benefit of many other advantages. The London, Midland and Scottish set apart one million sterling for housing for their workers. That is not in operation in the Free State, because of the fact that the insurance companies wanted about five times the premium on the property that they wanted on the other side, and the Company, naturally, held their hand. As soon as the insurance companies come to reason, the portion of that money to which the employees would be entitled in this country will come here.

It has been stated that I should have given some indication of the general principles and the general points on which this Bill was framed. I can do it very briefly, as the Chairman of the Dublin, South Eastern Company, who made a statement which indicated the whole course of events up to a certain date is here and has spoken somewhat on the point. It will be recollected that under the terms of the Railway Act certain companies named as the amalgamating companies to be, could form a preliminary amalgamation scheme and that they could then get into direct contact with any of the outstanding companies to endeavour to get an agreed amalgamation scheme before the tribunal proceeded further to determine the scheme. All of these companies, with one exception, did agree on a preliminary amalgamation scheme. The Dublin, South Eastern Company could not agree, and the reasons for failure to agree were stated by the Chairman of that company somewhere in the summer of this year.

It appeared that the failure to agree turned upon one point. Previously, under an arrangement between the Dublin, South Eastern Railway Company and the London, Midland and Scottish, as the inheritors of an earlier company, there had been an arrangement whereby the London, Midland and Scottish Company appointed one director to the board of the Dublin, South Eastern, that being in consideration of a sum of money of £100,000 which had previously been lent for the purpose of a certain extension on the part of the Dublin South Eastern line. When the Railways Bill was in passage through the Dáil, and I think even in the Seanad, I was urged to continue the right of appointment of such a director, transferring it from the Dublin South Eastern board to the board of the new amalgamated company. But as it did not seem to the Government that there was carried forward to the amalgamated company any new right which would be of considerable advantage to the new amalgamated company, as distinct from the Dublin, South Eastern, we did not fall in with that suggestion, and the right to appoint a director, transferred from the Dublin, South Eastern to the new amalgamated board, was not conceded in return for the old existing advantage arising from the loan of £100,000.

Was that £100,000 lent at a specific rate of interest, or was it a question of accommodation by one company to the other without interest?

The whole question was very definitely tied up by contract and schedule to the old agreement, the terms of which exist. I cannot recite it at the moment exactly. The payment of interest depended upon certain receipts accruing for a number of years. Then repayment of the loan or payment of interest on the loan might be made. This was the agreement, and it was not considered suitable to extend the right to the new amalgamated board in consideration of that sum of money. It then appeared from the statement of the directors of the Dublin, South Eastern Company that there was a sum of £20,000—it has been stated here as £25,000—but a sum estimated at £20,000, given at the discretion of the London, Midland and Scottish Company and not under contract, to the Dublin, South Eastern every year.

When the question of a preliminary agreement for an amalgamation scheme came to be considered, those appearing on behalf of the other company asked for an assurance that this sum of £20,000 would be continued permanently in the revenues of the Dublin, South Eastern. In the event of that assurance not being given, it was, of course, obvious that there would be a dispute over what were the actual receipts of the Dublin, South Eastern. The Dublin, South Eastern, of course, raised the argument—an argument which is, to a certain extent, sub judice, as it may fall for decision by the tribunal if this Bill be not passed—that inasmuch as this sum of £20,000 had continued for a number of years, was likely to continue in ordinary circumstances, and had, in fact, been stopped by the attitude of the Government in bringing in the Bill and removing the director who previously had been appointed. it would then fall to the Government to provide, out of public funds, a sum equivalent to the estimated revenue derived from these concessions and advantages set out in the Preamble of the Bill. As that point could not be decided, and as there was no agreement, the question of an agreed amalgamation scheme broke down, and the matter came before the tribunal. The tribunal, when the question of the issue of amalgamation stock came to be considered, had to decide what the revenue of the Dublin, South Eastern was. It was obvious that they would have to see that there was a definitely fixed sum of money before they could make a proper estimate of what were the ordinary receipts of the Dublin, South Eastern Railway Company. The scheme for a preliminary amalgamation having broken down, it seemed desirable to my Department that some investigation of the circumstances should be made and that we should endeavour to find out under what conditions this sum of money would be continued. Certain investigations and certain enquiries went on, and after a time it emerged that the previously amalgamated companies were agreeable to the idea of taking an appointee of the London, Midland and Scottish Company on their board, if in return the London, Midland and Scottish Company would transform the previous voluntary, discretionary payment of £20,000 a year into a contract binding them to pay such sum.

Senator Farren has raised the point of doing this by statute. The thing must be done by statute if it is to be done at all. An agreement that this sum shall continue is no good, because that agreement might lapse after a year or two, and the issue of amalgamated stock takes place this year and has to take place on some definitely fixed basis. If that sum of money is not guaranteed over a number of years and the matter is still one for consideration, the tribunal has to decide what the issue will be. In the event of that £20,000 not being fixed, stabilised, there is no doubt that the revenues of the Dublin, South Eastern Railway Company will be very seriously diminished and that the stockholders of that line will get very little return by way of amalgamation stock for what they at present hold. So that if this is to be done it has to be done by a statute which will set out clearly the terms, and will fix the agreement. If I might go on with a counter to that argument I say that it is surely better when a thing of this sort is to be done that it should be done openly, with the assent of the Oireachtas, than that it should be done behind closed doors and behind the backs of the public by some kind of private agreement which may lapse at any moment.

The other question was gone into. It seemed desirable that the director should be appointed; it seemed agreeable to the previous amalgamated companies that this appointee of the London, Midland and Scottish Company should be allowed to sit on the board, and it was found that the London, Midland and Scottish Company were willing to enter into an agreement for the continuance of the concessions, etc., estimated at a certain sum of money. That agreement was only signed in the course of the last fortnight, hence the delay in introducing this Bill and hence the urgency for getting it through at this moment. There will be, I am sure, a question raised here, as elsewhere, as to what is the value to be put on these concessions. I cannot estimate it at such and such a figure without fear of contradiction. But it is not for me to estimate it. I say we are simply following out what we did under the Railways Act when we set up a tribunal of certain experts to consider certain details, and we gave to their discretion the settlement of certain problems that we considered to be beyond the inexpert view of the Dáil and the Seanad. Similarly here, while there might be arguments as between individuals as to what these concessions and rebates amount to, they have at any rate been valued by the tribunal at a certain sum, and on foot of that valuation the tribunal are ready to make a certain issue of amalgamation stock. They are experts; they have been appointed for that type of business. If the agreement seems to them to be worth a sum laid down as £20,000, and if the tribunal agree to the issue of stock on that basis I do not think that it is an argument against the Bill that a correct, binding and clear estimate has not been made and has not been presented to the House.

This is not a question, therefore, of introducing a new principle into railway management in this country. There was previously a director from an English board on an Irish board, and if the objection is taken, as it was taken elsewhere, that this is the first time such a thing has been sanctioned by an Irish legislature, I can only answer here, as I did previously, that this has been incidentally given every consideration in the debates on the directorate in the Railways Bill, and no objection on point of principle was raised to this idea of having an appointee of a foreign company on the Irish amalgamated railway board. This is not, therefore, a question of principle; it is a question simply, as I see it, as to whether it is good business. Is what has been done good business? I find repeated here what was previously said in the Dáil; I am told that this is contrary to the whole trend of Sinn Fein—that this is going back on the policy of Arthur Griffith. We have had produced a comparison of the parade in College Green and the inscription round the cannon's mouth of "Free Trade or this," and we have the statement, summing it all up, that control of the Irish railways means control of Irish industries, and that English control of Irish railways and industries has always been fought against. If some syllogism of this sort, that control of our Irish industries by England is a thing we have always fought against, that one director on a board of sixteen means such control, and that, therefore, we should fight against one director on a board of sixteen is a logical argument, and it appeals to the logical sense of people here, then, of course, the Bill should be thrown out. But does one director on a board of sixteen mean English dominance over Irish industries? I cannot accept what I have previously described as the slave mind point of view, which insists that one Englishman on a board of directors of sixteen, one of them being himself, can overpower his fifteen colleagues—that he is going to divert traffic and going to change railway rates and railway routes simply to suit English interests. That is not a proposition that I can assent to, and I do not believe it is a proposition that will be assented to here. If the middle of the premises is not accepted, the conclusion that has been reached, by one Senator at least, falls. I cannot conceive of anything more discreditable to the citizens of this country than to say that in everything except warlike matters we are simply as putty in the hands of Englishmen. That has been said, and that is the basis of objections to this Bill. If that is the view taken by the people of this country, that they cannot be allowed, even in the proportion of fifteen to one, into consultation with Englishmen, then there is a very poor outlook for the country.

The mere bringing in of this Bill in such circumstances, or the mere rejecting of the Bill under such circumstances, is not going to do much good. Obviously, unless we set up some sort of an Aliens' Deportation Order, excluding all Englishmen, we are not going to have our country ever free from all these alien influences, and our people even in the proportion of 15 to 1, are going to be overwhelmed by the few Englishmen still remaining here. I would like to take the Senator's example of the cannon in College Green. Would Senator Moore be responsible for taking his rifle around College Green to-morrow, having the inscription on it: "Remove your L.M.S. Director or this——" and see what following he would get in the country? Would he excite any great national campaign on the point of one L.M.S. Director on a Board where there would be a majority against of 15 to 1? Would he arouse any enthusiasm outside for his statement that this one Englishman should not be allowed on a Board of sixteen because in everything except warlike matters we are simply glad to be mulcted by English adventurers?

If the Senator believes that that is a matter on which he is going to get popular support, I leave him to be disillusioned in the way in which I think he will be disillusioned speedily. There is another point which, seemingly, runs through all the argument against this, that the London, Midland and Scottish are actually going to get some return for the £20,000 which they have guaranteed to pay to the Amalgamated Co. I presume they are going to get some return for it. Let us assume that they are. Does the argument, then, run that no agreement is to be entered into by this State which, no matter how it affects the State, is at the same time going to do good to somebody else? If that is the argument, of course no agreement can ever be entered into by this country with any outside agency, because agreements are generally bilateral and generally bring advantages to both sides. With all respect, the fact that the London, Midland and Scottish are going to get some return for this £20,000 seems to me to be in the region of a truism. They would not make the payment unless they were going to get some return.

At whose expense?

Let it be that they believe they are going to get some return at the expense of this country or at the expense of some rival company catering for the trade of this country. If the amalgamated board, controlled by the shareholders after this year and elected by them at their meetings, is not going to be powerful enough to prevent the London, Midland and Scottish from getting what they believe to be a fair return for the £20,000, then our whole railway administration should simply be wiped away, because we have nobody strong enough to stand up against that one appointee. To push that principle to its extremity you cannot have an agreement with anybody outside this country no matter how beneficial that agreement may be to the country if it at the same time benefits the other fellow. How far can we afford to act on that principle?

There is a sugar beet proposal definitely before the Government at the moment. It requires experts from outside. There have been even offers of capital from outside, but the offer of capital will be accompanied by a demand for some control in the application of the money. Again, would it be thought derogatory to the dignity of this country if some outside proprietor in the sugar beet industry were admitted here, and will we again have the same arguments with regard to sugar beet that we have had with regard to the railways: that unless we get some overwhelming proportion of more than 15 to 1 the whole thing is to be turned down and turned away from Irish purposes. If that principle be acted upon no business can be done in this country except it is controlled completely by the people of the country. The principle seems to be that you are not going to admit experts on any account from outside this country, you are not going to enlist enthusiasm from outside and you are not going to make any effort to get outside capital into the country. It may be that that will be the best way to go along, but it should not be assumed here that that is the only way and that the other way, which does benefit outside people is, therefore, automatically and entirely wrong.

Senator Dowdall referred to the question of rates for condensed milk going from Limerick to London. How, I ask, is the one appointee of the London, Midland and Scottish going to prevent that rate being lowered as far as the Irish end of it is concerned? If the others do not approve of it, how is it going to be lowered to too low a point against the wishes of the other fifteen? Does not the Senator know that these through rates are a matter of arrangement between two parties? Does he believe that the English end of the rate is going to be more favourably fixed for Ireland by reason of close co-operation and co-ordination between the London, Midland and Scottish and the railways in this end or by hostility between the two companies? I think the favourable way to look at this is to try to engage the co-operation and the closer interest of the London, Midland and Scottish, who will have one end at least of these through rates. Senator Dowdall—I may have taken him up incorrectly—seemed to be under the impression that some people had been under as regards the extension of the old right of the London, Midland and Scottish to have a director on the Dublin, South Eastern Railway—the extension of that right to the new Board founded on the old arrangements.

That is not the case. The present arrangement is a new and a specific obligation for a payment of £20,000 founded on a contract and on foot of that new, specific and binding arrangement a director is to be given where previously there had been a director on a similar board, but in return for another consideration, which other consideration happened to bring with it a voluntary payment, strange as it happened to be, over a period of years, of £20,000 and of other concessions. But the obligation here now is a binding one, and it is a new and specific thing. It appears to the tribunal, to the railway companies concerned and to the Government to be good business, and that is the only point upon which these things should turn. Senator Farren's argument is founded on the present rates of wages. We have not anything to say to that at the moment. If the Bill passes Second Reading and if a certain amendment is allowed to pass from the Chair, then we may have that question discussed.

The only other point which Senator Farren did raise was the question of Statute. In answer to that I say that in my opinion it is much better that any arrangement of this sort should be a matter for the Oireachtas of the country and that it should be passed openly; also that it should be subject to withdrawal by the same Oireachtas by the repeal of the Bill, and that the interests of the country should be protected in that open way rather than by some private and hidden agreement.

I think that for people to say that this is a going back on the Sinn Fein policy and a renouncing of the doctrines of Arthur Griffith, to whom the country owes so much, is a complete parody of the whole situation. I think it is more true to look on it in this light: that where previously, under old conditions, we might have swerved away from any such proposition as this we have it in our power now to make it or to mar it. Now there is quite a new situation. We have got a certain Treaty arising out of which we have got a certain status. Taking our stand on that Treaty, confident of the status we have got through it, we now seek to make use of these powers because we know we possess these powers. We believe this is not in any way forced upon us, but that it is a conscious use by the Government of this country of the powers they have got through the Treaty.

I have noticed for some time that on the Second Reading of Bills in the Seanad Ministers have adopted the practice of refraining from giving any explanation whatever of these Bills or of their implication with the result that the Seanad very often goes away on a wrong course, and that the Minister is then able to flatten out arguments against the Bill because of want of knowledge on the part of Senators. I hope that that practice will be discontinued and that in future when Bills come before us for Second Reading Ministers will adopt the practice that is adopted in every Parliament of the world that I know of, and will give an explanation of them. When the Minister tells us that if we do not pass this Bill we shall be depriving the amalgamated company of £15,000 or £20,000 a year he is fully cognisant of the weight that an argument of that kind carries. Very few will be disposed to take upon themselves the responsibility of depriving the Irish company of the benefit of the bargain that has been driven with a silly English company who, very appropriately, in view of the approach of Xmas, are offering "new lamps for the old" in the true pantomime spirit.

Though one may not exactly like to offer any opposition, I, in great fear and trembling, would desire to put a few questions to the Minister as to why this Bill is necessary. The Minister says that there has been an old arrangement in operation, evidently a mutually satisfactory arrangement, between the old London and North Western of England, now the London, Midland and Scottish and the Dublin and South Eastern Railway, and that in order to carry forward that arrangement into the new amalgamated company, the London, Midland and Scottish must have a statutory right to nominate a director on the board irrespective of the wishes of the rest of the shareholders. Hence this Bill is to be passed through the Seanad. In other words, the London, Midland and Scottish will only agree to the continuation of this arrangement on this Act of homage and salute on the part of the Oireachtas, with the Minister behind the gun.

The Railways Act, 1924, provides for a maximum of fifteen directors on the new board. There is nothing in the world to prevent the new company allowing the Dublin and South Eastern Company, by agreement, to nominate a London, Midland and Scottish man as one of its two representatives on that board. There is nothing to prevent the railway tribunal itself, at its meeting next month, when it will confirm the preliminary scheme, from giving the Dublin and South Eastern three directors, if necessary, one of whom may be a representative of the London, Midland and Scottish. The Minister agrees that that could be done. He says after a year the directors would have to be elected by the shareholders. I agree. But if it is such a good bargain, from the amalgamated companies point of view, nobody will appreciate the value of that bargain more than the shareholders, and if it is a good bargain, is it seriously suggested that the shareholders of the amalgamated company will be so blind to their own interests as to throw out on the first opportunity the railway director who is providing the golden egg? The Minister tells us, in effect, that those silly shareholders do not know what they are getting for this, and that they are going to take the first opportunity of depriving the amalgamated company of £15,000 or £20,000 per year. Now, if this Bill were not passed, the agreement would not fall at all. The agreement is signed up to continue, at any rate, until 1940, and, as far as I can gather, there is nothing conditional in it to make the passing of this Bill into law necessary. That may be understood. But if this Bill did not pass, the agreement would continue, because it is a mutually satisfactory agreement on both sides, and the shareholders would respond to the call for a year or two years or three years as a vacancy arose, to elect a director from the London, Midland and Scottish that would bring them such great advantage.

The Minister has not explained, and I do not know whether he fully understands the nature of the concession at all. In fact, I do not profess to understand it. Roughly, it is in consideration of giving a certain director to the London, Midland and Scottish on the amalgamated company that there will be a generous share of the receipts and a generous division of the through rates, more than they might be entitled to in the ordinary division of the receipts from through traffic. There are such agreements as that in operation in respect of many other railway companies and combines. One must naturally see that there is a certain amount of competition between the L.M. and S. and the Great Western, and that it would be in their interests to prevent that and to continue the arrangement. I should say that there is no absolute guarantee that the amount should be £20,000. It depends upon the volume of traffic. It might run to £30,000 if there was a huge volume of traffic, and it might drop to £10,000 if the volume of traffic is small.

A proposal of this kind was put up in another guise and on another plea when the Railways Bill was going through, and it was emphatically turned down by the Government. There is a shrewd suspicion in the minds of people, and I hope the Minister will relieve it, that this Bill is a Saorstát salute of guns to the offending flag of the L.M. and S., and that they made it an absolute condition that they would not give the guarantee until their offended dignity had been appeased and unless this act of reparation was passed. I would like to ask the Minister, though I am afraid he cannot answer the question, by whom was the agreement engineered, so to speak? Did some person outside the Government ranks, but high in political influence and authority, commit the Government to the introduction of this Bill, and is it introduced not simply because the Government love it at all, but because they did not wish to turn down somebody who brought about that agreement?

I would like to know also what would happen if the Bill did not pass. Is this agreement to be lost? Is the London, Midland and Scottish, bag and baggage, to clear out of any reciprocal arrangement with the amalgamated company? It is a well-known fact that the people who guide the destinies of the London, Midland and Scottish have been trained in the strictest school of British diplomacy, and that their representative on this Board will have behind it all the power and strength that lies behind four hundred millions of capital. It is the biggest single corporation in Western Europe. All the weight of its influence and far-flung ramifications will be far greater in the new board than that of fifteen to one. Personally, I am not particularly troubled in regard to principle in reference to this case. I know that Capital and Commerce, as well as Labour, know no national boundaries, and that where they can command capital they have a right to representation. The capital that the London, Midland and Scottish owns would not give them a proportional right to representation on the Board, but if there is agreement that they should have it, there is no reason why they should not have it, even if they are an English company. But is it necessary—and I am not convinced that it is necessary—that we should come to a recognition of that fact by having to pass a Bill specially through both Houses of the Oireachtas?

I have told the way it could be done, and the Minister cannot say it could not be done unless he wishes to pass a vote of no confidence in the common sense of the shareholders of the amalgamated railway company. I saw in some of the correspondence that the whole thing was drafted by the amalgamated company. The fact is that this agreement was drawn up in Euston, and not as much as one comma of it was altered, and any proposal by the amalgamated company was turned down. Has the company any interest at all in the matter? Where does Senator Moran get his proof from? Was it that he picked it up in the streets or that he read it in the newspapers? Is there significance in the fact that we have almost a record house here to-day. Is that not to be taken as an indication of the influence which the London, Midland and Scottish may be able to wield on the board of the new national Free State railways? I just throw this out as a question for consideration to members of the Seanad evidently not in a position to know, or not able to see that the Minister has been very clever in dealing with all the weak points and ignoring the strong points. Having asked for some information, it behoves myself to give a little. I wish now to touch upon the points made by Senator Farren in justice to the Irish employees of the London, Midland and Scottish Company. In giving this, it may be taking one or two of the jewels from the halo woven round the head of the London, Midland and Scottish elsewhere. The clerical workers in Dublin alone number about 250. They have some in Cork and some in Dundalk, and some outside the Saorstát and in Belfast, and a London, Midland and Scottish rank and file clerk, 26 years of age, with 10 or 11 years' service, gets the magnificent sum of 61/6 per week, though really in a responsible position. In the amalgamated company on which this new director is to be, a clerk with the same service and responsibility has 77/- per week, although working side by side with the other man at the North Wall.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think, Senator, you are travelling outside the scope of the question before us. This Bill has nothing to do with the question of wages at all. I think you are travelling a little outside the motion for Second Reading, especially as I see you have an amendment in the Committee Stage dealing with this matter. I did not object so far as you have gone, but I do think you should not now go into any more detail.

I would not have gone so far except that you allowed two Senators and the Minister to discuss these matters.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

No. There was one observation made by Senator Farren which Senator Moran thought reflected on the company, and answered. I did not stop that. Now you are going to develop the question of wages, and I think you are travelling outside the scope of the motion before the House.

I take it from these remarks, that you intend, sir, to rule my amendment out of order.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

No. I have not said that at all, because a matter that may be quite relevant in Committee may not be relevant now.

Then I do not intend to pursue that further. I submit these considerations, and I think the Minister might answer some of them, because that would certainly relieve the minds of some of us who are in opposition to the Bill. At any rate I am not definitely opposed to the Bill on principle. I do not see a tremendous lot in it from that point of view. If the points put forward are not answered, that it could be met in another way, and we cannot, at least, allay the minds of those who think the principle bad, it is a bad start to make in what I might be permitted in some respects to call a national railway scheme, although, of course, it is controlled by private enterprise. I would be definitely opposed to it if I thought this Bill was introduced in order to salve the alleged offended dignity of any combine, no matter how great it was. Great corporations are on occasions like these far more powerful than the Government, and far more powerful than a young and inexperienced Government, called on to deal with technical questions against men who have spent a lifetime in the study of these questions and who are very clever in the school of diplomacy. I hope the Minister will clear up these points as to whether this cannot be done in the way I said, and whether in that respect he may not be able to relieve the minds of those who definitely moved the rejection of the Bill.

I have listened patiently to the discussion on this Bill, and I failed to find any solid reason put forward which would induce me, as a business man, to vote against it. As far as I can see, all the reasons put forward are largely sentimental, or based upon what is called principle, which I find nowadays to be, in most cases, personal consideration, or personal prejudice. I want the Senate to get rid of this atmosphere of prejudice and all this appeal to their sentiment about English interference. As far as I can understand this Bill it is introduced simply in order to embody an agreement and to give effect to an agreement that has been arrived at between the amalgamated company and the Dublin and South Eastern Company, and an agreement that has been ratified by the railway tribunal. It is a very serious step to upset an agreement arrived at after such an amount of trouble, and it is a more serious step to repudiate the ratification of it by the railway tribunal——

On a point of explanation, may I inform the Senator that the railway tribunal has not approved of the scheme. It is to meet on the 1st January to consider the preliminary scheme, which is still open to objection.

I understood the railway tribunal had practically, if not formally, approved. But be that as it may, it certainly is a drastic step to take to ask us, in view of the reasons put forward, to reject this Bill. Various motives are alleged for the L.M. and S. giving this sum of £20,000. Senator Colonel Moore and Senator Dowdall alleged it is to get a stranglehold upon the trade of the country. Senator O'Farrell says it is due to a sudden phase of silliness, but the real reason is, as I understand it, that they wish to have a director on the board to see that there is no unfair diversion of traffic from the ports they control to the ports their rivals control, and that for these concessions they are prepared to give a sum variously estimated at £20,000 to £30,000. That sum, if not paid by the L.M. and S., will have to be found out of the pockets of the ratepayers or the National Exchequer. Speaking as a business man, and not as a patriot, I think the Minister has made an exceedingly good bargain for the country. I think it is a bargain that we should not lightly repudiate, because the policy of this country should be to make the most we can out of the rivalries of the English railway systems.

I invite any of these Senators who have spoken on the position to give one concrete example of the injurious or adverse effect that this agreement will have on any traders in the country, on any trader who exports goods to England, or who imports goods from England, or on any of the travelling public to prevent them travelling to and from both countries. Senator Dowdall talked about the freights and our capacity to retaliate. The London, Midland and Scottish would only have to put 5/- a head on the cattle we export, and it is not by putting a little more on the cotton coming from Manchester or the hosiery from Leicester that we could retaliate so effectively as to hit them back. I can see no business reason, and I certainly can see no patriotic reason that would induce me to vote against this Bill. The best patriotism at the present time is that which gives the first and primary consideration to the economic needs of the country and which will promote employment and foster trade. I do not think that to reject this £20,000 is likely to do that. There has been a lot of talk about English interference and that this one man in sixteen is going to exercise a tremendous influence on the board. Well, except he has the power of a character that we had long ago in Donegal that some Senators here will probably remember, he will not be able to do that. This character was said to have an eye that when he looked at his enemies he at once defeated them. Well, this man will not have the devastating influence asserted by Senator Dowdall.

I am surprised to hear all this talk about English interference coming from the Labour ranks, especially when it is a well-known fact that the influence exercised by this one director will be nothing in comparison with the influence exercised by English trades unionists in Irish affairs. There is not a railway servant in Ireland who is not a member of the English union of railwaymen. Even in Donegal, where there is a railway being run at a loss of £10,000 a year, the employees cannot even discuss the reduction of wages so that the railway may run, without consulting people in England. Whatever may be said about English influence, it is the merest cant and humbug for Labour people to talk about it, seeing that they themselves acquiesce in English influence to such a large extent being exerted in Irish railway matters.

Will the Minister for Industry and Commerce state here definitely that the London, Midland and Scottish Railways are prepared to grant this £20,000 a year as a free gift to the new Irish railway amalgamated company? I would like further to ask Senator Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde what subsidy the old City of Dublin Company paid to the Dublin and South Eastern when they had the carrying of the mails? Much has been made here of two points. One is the £20,000 that this foolish company are prepared to hand over to the Irish railways, and the other that fourteen Irishmen will be more than a match for one Englishman. I do not know that Senators would accept that when I know that most Senators here will remember that the matter of the capture of the mails by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway began by the argument about the right of bringing in a steamer to the pier at Dun Laoghaire. At that time most people saw no danger or difficulty in the matter at all. The London and North Western were facilitated and given berths, and ultimately they wound up by wiping out the City of Dublin Steampacket Company, and putting them out of business altogether. They now carry the mails. To a plain man like me, when the London, Midland and Scottish Railway are paying this money, it is plain that it is not a grant. It is not a free gift, and the very fact of those people getting in here in that way is only another illustration of the old proverb about throwing out a sprat in order ultimately to catch a salmon.

Have I a right to reply?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I am afraid not, Senator. But if there is any matter of special explanation you have to make, I think the Seanad would be prepared to hear you.

I beg to yield my place to Senator Dowdall.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You have no place to yield. You are only moving a direct negative, and I have said I could not accept your amendment as a substantive motion, and you have no right of reply. However, I am sure the Seanad will not object to Senator Dowdall speaking again on an important matter of this kind, if it is only a question of personal explanation, and, I believe, he will have the permission of the Seanad to make the few observations he wishes.

I only wish to touch on this point that the Minister in his extremely able way referred to— the fifteen to one argument. I would ask the Seanad to remember that in addition to one director on the amalgamated company, the London, Midland and Scottish has control over every port on the western seaboard of England. When that is remembered, the Seanad will see that the position of the one director is one of enormous advantage over the others, and not only enormous advantage, but enormous power. There are a great many matters I would like to go into in this. Possibly with the indulgence of the Seanad I might be allowed to say——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Senator, I could allow you to make a personal explanation, but not to speak generally on the motion. I cannot allow you go into new matter.

May I reply to Senator O'Farrell on one point that is very material. He asks: "Cannot this be done some way other than by statute?" He suggests as an alternative by agreement. The answer to that is, between now and the beginning of the year the amalgamation scheme must be definitely determined—must be known. One portion of that will be the issue of amalgamated stock. There must be a certainty with regard to the continuance of the old allowance. The Senator says that that certainly can be secured by agreement, and he says that I must submit to that argument of his, or that otherwise I am passing a vote of censure on the shareholders. He says the agreement made now apparently can be reversed next year by the shareholders when they come to elect a new director. That may happen. There is no certainty, as the issue of stock that will last as long as railway stock in the country lasts, has to be made here and now. It is because the time is so short that this must be done by way of statute which will have a certain binding effect. I do not think that I could be accused of having passed a vote of censure on the shareholders next year, because they will not see what is to their advantage.

The shareholders' position is quite different. The revenue of the new company is fixed under the Railways Act. Whether the £20,000 is given by the London, Midland and Scottish, by the Government or comes from the rates, is immaterial. They get it in any event. The shareholders have no concern of what the revenue is to be. The people concerned are not railway users but taxpayers. Are the taxpayers going to provide a subvention of £20,000 in return for a director, or leave it to the shareholders to reverse that agreement and raise the necessary revenue out of the rates? The present position of the railway rates will be perilous if you throw this additional burden of £20,000 on them. I am not censuring the shareholders, but I think it is possible they might lightheartedly throw over this agreement next year. However, if they feel strongly on the matter it can be done even with the Bill here.

To their own detriment.

Decidedly. The question for the Seanad is: we must have something certain for the tribunal. We must have certain lines of agreement, or, in the absence of that, the tribunal must, under this Bill, guarantee that the money has been refused, and that any agreement of the sort will not be tolerated by the Oireachtas of the State. Then they will have a clear way and know definitely where they are. To have something founded on the agreement to get somebody next year —no tribunal could do business on that basis. The Senator was right.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I was going to say to the Minister not to open new ground, as the same rule that applies to the ordinary members of the House applies to the Minister on the Second Reading.

Does the £20,000 vary at all with the rates?

It may vary. There are two other points made by Senator O'Farrell which I might deal with. They appear to me to be necessary, but they may not appear so to him. He asked by whom was the agreement engineered, and hinted that there was some personage who had, I gather, rather landed the Government into compliance and assent to the agreement, and that it was not a matter we were really very much in love with, but that we felt in honour bound to go on with it. That is not the position. No one engineered the Government into this. The Government, after the speech made by the Chairman of the Dublin, South Eastern Railway Company last year, tried to find out how the money could be continued. It seemed desirable to them that the money should be continued, and by various devious ways investigated as to how the money could be secured. Anything that was done was done with their knowledge. Remember, the agreement is not an agreement between the Government and any company. It is an agreement entered into between the amalgamated company and the London, Midland and Scottish. The agreement, once entered into, the details were brought to me to see if it could be implemented and fixed up by statute of the Oireachtas. As to this being simply a means of soothing the wounded dignity of certain people, I think anyone in the Seanad who remembers the various conflicting proposals for the settlement of the railway question in this country, remembers one grandiose scheme and its dependency on a certain railway company on the other side, and remembers the treatment that railway scheme got, cannot, I believe, think that this is any salve to the outraged dignity of people on the other side. I would like the Senator to put up that to the company and say whether they would say it was any salve for their wounds at all.

Senator Foran speaks of a free gift of £20,000. I do not know if I ever described it as a free gift. I think there was consideration on both sides, and I believe there are advantages to be derived on the Irish side, beyond even the payment of £20,000. Senator O'Farrell raised a very peculiar point, that a director could be co-opted. The only allowance made by way of co-option is for the filling of a casual vacancy. A co-option of that type would be useless as a binding agreement, the consideration on the other side being payment of a large sum of money.

Motion—"That the Railways (Directorate) Bill, 1924, be read a Second Time"—put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 6.

  • J. G. Douglas.
  • H. L. Barniville.
  • W. Barrington.
  • T. W. Bennett.
  • S. L. Brown.
  • R. A. Butler.
  • Mrs. E. Costello.
  • J. C. Counihan.
  • Countess of Desart.
  • Sir T. Grattan Esmonde.
  • Sir N. Everard.
  • M. Fitzgerald.
  • Sir John Griffith.
  • H. S. Guinness.
  • C. J. Irwin.
  • J. C. Love.
  • E. McEvoy.
  • J. McLoughlin.
  • Earl of Mayo.
  • J. Moran.
  • G. Nesbitt.
  • B. O'Rourke.
  • J. J. Parkinson.
  • G. Sigerson.
  • Earl of Wicklow.

Níl

  • J. C. Dowdall.
  • T. Farren.
  • T. Foran.
  • P. W. Kenny.
  • J. MacKean.
  • Colonel Moore.
Motion declared carried.

I desire to ask would it be agreeable to the Seanad to have the remaining stages of this Bill taken now? It is a matter of urgency.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Two amendments have been handed in for Committee Stage. I do not know whether the Seanad would be agreeable to take that stage now. They could do so by suspending Standing Orders.

I think, as the matter is an important one, we should have a day or two to consider it.

I move that the Standing Orders be suspended in order to take the remaining stages of this Bill to-day.

I second.

Motion declared carried, on a show of hands, 25 voting for and 6 against.

Barr
Roinn