B—l2

54

of interest, and he hoped the House would adopt the motion, because it would be an aid towards the carrying-out of important works- which had been sanctioned, and it would give an impetus, not to bogus or merely speculative works or companies, but to trade generally in those directions where it was needed. Mr. C. Lewis said that so far the discussion had been almost entirely confined to gentlemen who were particularly interested in railway enterprise; but the general public had a right to be considered in the matter. Having observed that opposition to the motion came chiefly from the representatives of three great railway companies—the London and North-Western, the Midland, and the Great Western —and that their object was to prevent the smaller companies getting the independent advantages which the proposed alteration would give them, he contended that it was not for the public good, in relation to the great question of the extension of railway accommodation, to keep any longer the restriction it was proposed to remove. He should have thought that the opinion of the Chairman of Ways and Means on such a point as this would have gone a long way with honourable members; but it appeared to him that many of the objections that had arisen, and many of the difficulties that had been started, were removed by the careful and protective way in which the provision in question was to be carried out, for it was rather on the side of strictness than of laxity. Sir L. Playfaik said that this proposed alteration came under his notice while occupying the office of Chairman of Ways and Means. It involved no question of principle, and was solely a matter of policy and expediency, which the House could determine for itself. The present Standing Order was adopted in 1847 ; but in the previous year nearly one hundred Bills, involving a capital of forty millions, were passed through the House. But in 1847 the House, seeing the great railway mania that existed, thought it necessary to put a stop to it, and a very efficient Standing Order for repressing the growth of railways was passed. It was not then treated as a question of principle, and the Master of the Eolls in his judgment put it in this way : If a house were built by a man, and £1,000 had to be paid for it, he would draw that amount out of his investments ; but while that house was building he must add to the cost of the house the interest on the capital, as well as the capital itself. It was the same with respect to railways—whether paid by the individual or by the undertaking, the cost of the undertaking was the capital plus the interest on it before it became reproductive. The question that came before him as Chairman of Ways and Means was as to whether the time had not come for relaxing this repression of enterprise. He found that there was a great net of railways, constructed by great capitalists, covering the country; but there was still a demand by localities for branch railways, such localities not considering that they had the encouragement from the large companies that they ought to have. They then came for power to construct those railways, and they did so by evading the Standing Order in almost all cases. The railway was constructed, and interest was paid to the small capitalist during construction, and the Standing Order was treated as if it had not existed. The very fact of the small holdings in undertakings such as the Hull and Barnsley Eailway, averaging only £250, against an average holding of £1,700 in the larger companies, was a strong argument in favour of the proposed alteration. It showed that the public were interested in the undertakings, and were willing to offer small sums for the construction of railways in their localities. This Standing Order as proposed would offer far more efficient protection to the unwary investor by the securities placed upon it than by the continuance of the present system. But it was on the ground of the dignity of the House chiefly that he was desirous of seeing the Standing Order changed. It was not right that a Standing Order should continue in existence which could be evaded by any person who chose. Mr. Eaikes cordially agreed with the observations of the right honourable member for Edinburgh University. The alteration of the Standing Order had been opposed on the ground that it would afford facilities to impose upon the unwary investor. The present operation of the Standing Order was that the only investment denied to the small capitalist was the small English railway. All kinds of foreign undertakings guaranteed interest, and there was no question that an immense amount of English capital ready for investment was driven abroad through the restrictions now imposed on small English undertakings. He agreed with the honourable member for Stafford and others that a matter of this sort should be dealt with by Bill rather than by an alteration of the Standing Orders. His honourable friend's proposal would, in his opinion, carry into effect the dictum of the late Master of the Eolls that had been referred to. He would call attention to the fact that in the largest undertaking now before Parliament—that of the Manchester Ship Canal—it was proposed by the Bill to charge a sum of money, being part of the total capital, with interest, during the construction of the undertaking; and unless the promoters were enabled to give effect to that proposal, he understood the scheme would bo dropped. He hoped that, having regard to the fact that the proposal now before the House was that of the Chairman of Ways and Means, who had devoted special attention to it since he had been in office, and that it gave effect to the recommendations of the Committee of last year, and that it had, moreover, received the support of every member who had spoken except the representatives of the great railway companies, the House would pay attention to what had been shown to be the interests of the public, rather than listen to the demands of powerful corporations. Mr. Chambeklain said he desired to make a few observations, and in doing so must be understood as speaking, not on behalf of the Government as such, but only as expressing his own strong opinion, though he believed it was the opinion of most of his colleagues, and particularly of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who, it would be admitted, was not an unimportant authority on State finance. He thought the House had to thank, and to thank warmly, his right honourable friend the Chairman of Committees for having brought this matter before them. It was a difficulty which had grown in the time of his predecessors, and it was only in performance of his official duty that he had called the attention of the House to the subject, and had proposed a method of getting over the difficulty which had arisen. Upon the merits, he thought there were two questions to be