53

8.—12

people who ought to be protected, if they were to protect investors at all—the class which was least able to protect themselves. In 1881, out of the whole amount of ordinary railway stock, £36,500,000 paid no dividend, £6,250,000 paid 1 per cent, and under, and £15,250,000 paid 2 per cent, or less. In 1870-71 the average dividend paid by railway companies was 4-4 per cent.; in 1880-81 it dropped to 4-29 per cent. He would ask, then, had the time come when the House could with propriety repeal a law and a Standing Order which had so long operated without detriment to railway enter-, prise and for the protection of psople who ought to be protected? Ho objected to the encouragement of these lines from the point of view of the mercantile community. His experience had been that these small lines were thorns in the sides of the larger companies. He believed that an alteration of the Standing Order in the manner proposed would be detrimental to the commercial interests of the country. There was no difficulty whatever in now raising any amount of capital for legitimate railway enterprise, and there was, therefore, no necessity for the alteration. On the other hand, it would not stop fraud ; for the man who was unable to raise capital by the bond fide merits of his undertaking would continue to attract investors by means of the Standing Orders. On the whole, he thought that the alteration would do a great deal more harm than good. In accordance with the opinion of the Speak 3r, he should take the simple course of simply proposing to negative the motion. Mr. Geegoby doubted whether an alteration of the Standing Orders would affect the construction of railways to any extent. That was, no doubt, the intention in 1845; but in 1848 some of the heaviest railway contests took place. Nor did the subsequent Standing Order have any material effect in checking speculation. What would check speculation to a considerable extent was a better understanding between the great railway companies themselves that they would not promote lines for the purpose of speculation or of attacking each other's interests. That would be a greater check than anything the House could do by Standing Orders. He thought, however, that the motion of the Chairman would have a good effect in checking what were known as contractors' lines. A contractor sometimes took shares in the proposed railway in part payment of his price, and then he got off these shares as well as he could. The contractor ought only to be able to get shares from shareholders in the ordinary way, and he should only be allowed a moderate rate of interest on his outlay, instead of the company being driven to accept his own terms. At present he received not only more than a moderate rate of interest, but also a very large premium on the prices he charged and the capital he expended. What was contemplated by this Standing Order was that a shareholder should receive a moderate rate of interest on any money he advanced beyond the amount of his calls actually made ; so that if he liked to advance money in anticipation of calls he was to receive interest at 4 per cent, per annum, subject to certain specified conditions. The proposal was, in effect, to allow of an ordinary mercantile transaction taking place, such as occurred out-of-doors every day. It appeared to him to be, under the circumstances, a very fair and moderate proposal, and he hoped it would be accepted by the House. Mr. Caebutt thought it would be most disastrous to the railway companies and the public in general if the Standing Order were altered in the manner proposed. If the proposal were accepted it would work best for the large capitalists and worst for the small holders. It was not for them to encourage small investors to go into investments which ought to remain in the hands of large capitalists only. In the interest of the working-classes, he trusted that the House would hesitate before it accepted the proposal then before it. Mr. Salt said that the question was peculiarly difficult, as the arguments on both sides were evenly balanced. The broad principle on which the House was invited to act might be invoked with equal propriety on either side, some contending that capital should be left as free as possible, and others that interest was of its very nature something to be earned, and should not be paid without being earned. As for the alteration of the Order, it was impossible to look at railway companies now as they were regarded in 1847, when I, the Order was passed, and when the railway system of the country was in its infancy. Our system now was all but complete, and it was doubtful how far it would be fair to existing companies to alter the Order on which their concerns were expressly based. Whatever was done ought to be done without much delay, as the promoters of many very great enterprises, representing many millions of capital, were awaiting the decision of the House. His right honourable friend the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means had adopted the views of the Committee of last year—that as things were some change was expedient, and that, though it would be well if the Standing Order could be generally adhered to, yet, in peculiar circumstances, some relaxations should be permitted. The Committee of last year, partly in consequence of the memorandum of Sir F. Eeilly, had recommended that the alteration should be made, not by way of resolution, but by means of a Bill; and the latter was certainly the preferable course. A resolution was a rather summary method of procedure; but a Bill, being sure to meet with opposition, would give every member and every interest an opportunity of being heard. Colonel Smith remarked that, as the Act of 1845 was in existence, there was no particular necessity for the Standing Order, which was naturally and inevitably evaded. There could be no doubt that the Standing Order had been frequently evaded, and he hoped the House would carefully consider what had been the effect of perpetuating the old system. One result was to cripple legitimate enterprise, and to drive the companies into the hands of contractors. The principle of the proposed change in the Standing Order had been approved by Sir G. Jessel, the late Master of the Eolls, and if carried out it would merely have the same effect as if a railway company were to issue their stock at a discount. He thought that the rule of caveat emptor should apply to the case of shareholders of railway stock as much as to the purchasers of other property. The effect of the alteration would be to return to the old permissive system. The Standing Order referred to had not worked well; it had been evaded; and It would not work well in the future if retained. He believed the Chairman of Ways and Means had hit the happy medium with regard to the rate