33

8.—12

324. I want to bring you to your own suggestion. You suggest that in each Railway Bill it should be defined in the clause for what period interest should be paid during construction, say two, three, or five years, as the case may be ?—Yes. 325. Now, assuming a new railway to be started by promoters who are somewhat careless, let us suppose that they put in a clause containing a period much longer than is necessary, say six or seven years, when three or four would be sufficient, who is there to protect the public from the action of such a clause, or from the insertion of such a clause, assuming this Standing Order to be swept away ?—The question of the length of time occupied in these works, as you know, is generally pretty carefully guarded in Committees. The time for the acquisition of lands and the time for the construction of works is always put into the draft Bill in italics, and the attention of the Committee is expressly called to it; and, generally speaking, in the discussion which takes place before the Committee, those figures are settled, and it is not at all infrequent to have a discussion as to the length of time; and I assume that the Committee of Parliament that passed the Bill would protect the public in that respect. Then, there is a noble Lord in another House who exercises rather a large power and is very critical upon that amongst other things; he occasionally strikes out "three" and puts in "two." It does not go, as a matter of course, as it is first proposed. But I think there ought to be a reasonable limitation. 326. There is not quite the same ground for, or the same likelihood of, the interference of Committees in regard to the period of payment of the money that there is in regard to the period of the construction of the works, because a good deal of inconvenience arises if the works are delayed ? —I rather suggested that the period of the power to pay interest should not run beyond the period of the power given by the Committee to construct the works. They are always anxious that landowners should not have unfinished railways hanging over them, and they always limit the time allowed for the completion of the works. 327. May I take it that your view is in favour of the absolute repeal of the Standing Order 167 ?—I would go so far as to argue for the absolute repeal of it. I think that any obstruction or limitation under that Standing Order is prejudicial to the public interest. 328. Have you seen the suggestions made by Lord Kedesdale ?—I think I have, if you mean the suggestions about interest. 329. I want to know whether you think the adoption of those suggestions would cause obstruction? —Yes. One of the suggestions is that two-thirds of the capital should be paid up: " That such payment of interest or dividend shall not begin until the company have proved to a Justice (Sheriff) that two-thirds of the share capital (if any) has been bond fide issued and accepted." Now, that is a thing which at once clashes with practice. In this very important work, the Inner Circle Completion, which involves not only a railway of the first importance to railway travellers, but a new street of the greatest importance to London, we are expressly empowered to raise our capital in two portions : that is to say, when we have raised £625,000 of capital we may proceed to raise £400,000 of debentures; and then, having done that, we may proceed with the second portion. This Standing Order would clash with that. And we do not want the money all at once; these are very large sums of money, and there is no object in the company being driven to raise money before it wants it. I should, therefore, press upon the Chairman of Committees for some modification of that. 330. Does anything else occur to you with reference to his suggestions?—He proposes some limitation upon the rate of interest. 331. Four-and-a-half per cent, he proposes ?—Yes; and I think that it ought to be made somewhat elastic. I think, if I remember right, the Great Northern Company, in their original Act, were authorized, notwithstanding any clauses or anything of the kind, to pay interest during construction not exceeding 5 per cent. 332. The Chairman.] And that is the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means, is it not ? —Yes; and I think that 5 per cent, is more elastic, because one can easily understand that the circumstances of the money-market might make it very difficult to raise at a rate under 4-J per cent, when it might be easy to raise it at 5. During the last four months, almost on a sudden, the state of the market was so altered that you could not raise money at 4-J- per cent. I should think myself, therefore, that this suggestion as to 4J per cent, would want a little modification. 333. Mr. Salt.] Do you think 5 per cent, high enough?—l think sis a rational sum. 334. Now, very often when a railway is made its dividend-earning power does not commence immediately upon its completion; there may be an interval of a year or two ? —Yes. 335. Do you propose to leave that a blank, with no earning-power ?—I am hardly prepared to go so far as to suggest the payment of interest after the railway is finished and has become a moneyearning concern. Then it must stand on its merits. 336. I may take it as your feeling, with regard to a general monetary and commercial policy, that any restriction in the way of the natural flow of money and the natural course of commercial enterprise is more or less inconvenient and mischievous ? —I think it is exceedingly mischievous; and it is especially mischievous in relation to the class of railway works which are now nearly the only class of works that are wanted—namely, works to fill up what may be called intermediary districts. It is quite fatal to those. Lieut.-Colonel Gerard Smith examined. 337. The Chairman.] Have you heard the bulk of the evidence that has been given in this room in regard to the operation of Standing Order 167 ? —I have heard a good deal of it. 338. Generally speaking you concur, I understand, with those who think that this Order ought to be greatly modified, if not repealed?— Yes. I do not think I should go as far as Mr. Forbes and say that the Order ought to be entirely repealed,, but I am satisfied there must be some modification of it. s—B. 12.