8.—12

27

254. It would prevent the company from existing, very likely?— Then the directors would not PU 265! Then you are in favour of this modification of the Standing Order, I suppose ?—Yes. 056' Mr Brand.] In the case of the issue of prospectuses your opinion is that the promoters should put in plain English that the interest is to be paid for a certain number of years out ot tne capital of the company ?-I suggested a prospectus, but I would say that, m some form or another notice should be given. May I be allowed to mention one point bearing upon a question which 1 heard the Chairman ask Mr." Laing, namely, as to the deposit. 257 The Chairman.] Certainly: will you please mention it?—l should like to mention this fact though perhaps it does not bear very directly on this point: that the deposit is supposed to be forfeited if the railway or tramway—l think it only relates to railways or tramways—is not made or if the capital is not subscribed. It was found that this deposit, or the bond, which was forme'rlv given in lieu of the deposit, was practically never enforced; and a few years ago an endeavour was made by arrangement with the Chairman of Ways and Means, and by alteration TtSsLnZg Orders! to make that into a reality, and to secure that the deposit should be forfeited if the undertaking was not completed. We find now, when the thing comes to work, that it is extremely difficult to enforce that rule. The parties come with a Bill to Parliament for abandoning the undertaking, and in that Bill they insert a clause entitling them to have the money back again. That clause would not bo passed without the consent of the Government. The parties then come to the Government, and they allege, with more or less truth that all sorts of difficulties have arisen which they never contemplated; and it is found to be practically impossible to refuse them leave to get their deposit back through the medium of their Bill I wished to bring that fact before the Committee to show how extremely difficult it is to enforce that IOT m YoSave fcSdtt. not only difficult, but impossible, as I understand you ?-I should be sorry to say that it is impossible, because we are trying to enforce it, and it has been enforced in some cases ; but I am not sanguine of our being able to enforce it generally. , 259! Has it in any single instance been enforced?-1 am told it has been enforced in two cases. •, Mr. James Staats Eokbes examined. 260. The Chairman.] You, as we all know, are the Chairman of the London, Chatham, and Dover and the Metropolitan District Eailways ?—Yes. 261 You have hid many years' experience in railway business both m England and on the Continent and especially in the raising of capital to carry out new railways ?—Yes. 262 And you are fully alive to the operation of the Standing Order 167, which we are now considering— Yes. The operation of the Standing Order is to add very much to the difficulty of making subsidiary railways, not only as regards entirely new projects, but also as regards projects promoted and to be carried out by the poorer class of companies. I have had, unfortunately an experience of that especial kind in connection with both the London, Chatham and Dover Bailway and the District Bailway-experience, that is to say, of a poor company which had to ficht its way against a rich company. The Standing Order is not only in many cases fatal to'the construction of new railways legitimately promoted in districts by local people, but it is also fatal to a poor company struggling against a rich company. 263 Then in your opinion, the Standing Order has been effective in a sense ?—lt has been effective' in a sense; in limiting railway construction where it is greatly needed; but in many cases it has been evaded. lam bound to say-I do not know whether I shall require shrift for saying itthat I^^J^^^withi'hoße who have represented to us that it has been systematically evaded and violated ?—Yes ; the law-breaker always has the advantage of _ coming after_ the lawmaker • and, if laws are made which in practice are found obstructive and inapplicable, ingenuity ran eenerallv get either under them, or over them, or round them. can ferawg ° wonM you g0 so far as Mr. Farrer, who has told us that, in his view, he does not ,«e how Parliament could possibly prevent a law of this kind being more or less evaded ?-I do not think Parliament could prevent it, for the reason that people whose interest it is to evade these obstractive laws and whose duty it is to carry out works sanctioned by Parliament, have to resort to "ingenuity to overcome the'difficulties made for them by Parliament. - ' •, 206 Do you think that the payment of interest during the construction of a railway is a legitimate item of expenditure?-I cannot imagine any item more legitimate. If you aPPty «J° anvthin- but a railway, it is at once apparent. Suppose you want to build yourself a house, there are one mtvvo things that the builder will suggest: he will suggest that, upon, the house becoming Stable you shall pay a lump sum; or, if you like to build it by your own architect, then you must find money from month to month to pay for it: you cannot divert money from your business or investments without sacrificing interest. lam astonished to find such a law existing, or w^ s.^ Parliame nt has made an unwise distinction between railways and tramways on the one hand, and all other undertakings on the other hand?-I think so ; and especially unwise as applying to a class of enterprise which it is the interest of Parliament f°26B v'ou 1 trace™origin of this distinction to the railway mania of forty years ago?—l think it was a Standing Order made in a panic of some kind or other; it is so irrational that it seems to j^-Jf^" quest ion about the law and practice in regard to this question in other continental countries, and he could not answer the question; but can you give the Committee any information on that point ?-Yes. I have been for many years the Vice-President of. the Dutch-Snish Eailway, which is the most important railway in Holland. It connects the ports