59

8.—12

of place. It was through overlooking this remarkable peculiarity in Mr. Chamberlain that his noble and learned friend found himself in his present position. At the same time, the arguments of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack appeared to be convincing, and he thought they had better leave the matter unprejudiced, as there seemed to be no anxiety on the other side of the House to spare Mr. Chamberlain's feelings. Considering the enormous amount of property affected, this was one of the gravest resolutions the House could pass. It was a proposal to enable a certain number of investors to practise upon themselves a wholly innocent self-deceit, and to take, in the form of interest, what was really a little of their own capital returned to them. He was far from saying there might not be reasons of public policy in favour of the change ; but the reasons of public policy were of two kinds, and pointed in two different directions. This was entirely a question whether the railway which its friends called a contractor's railway, and its enemies called a bogus railway, was a kind of railway which it was desirable to multiply. There was a scarcity of investments at present, and money would be speedily found to make these railways. They might be wanted by districts, or by persons in districts, and yet they might not pay their working expenses. The passing of the proposed Standing Order would facilitate the making of these railways. They would benefit the district or some of its inhabitants; but it was only fair to remember that considerable injury might be inflicted upon the main railway to which the district belonged, and a blow of that kind might result in injury to the public. One of these contractors' railways, which did not pay its expenses, must in the long run be bought up by the main railway of the district. This was really like presenting the father of a family, already overburdened with spendthrift sons, with a prodigal son for whose existence he was not responsible. It might be necessary to do it, but it ought not to be done hastily or with a light heart. To inflict heavy burdens on main lines in this way would probably result in increased fares and diminished accommodation. He was anxious not to prejudice the consideration of a subject upon which sufficient argument had not been heard; and it was not the duty of Parliament permanently to take the course proposed without giving so grave a matter the utmost consideration in its power. Earl Geanville said it was not quite accurate to state that this change was proposed or supported by the Government. The proposition was made by the Chairman of Committees in the other House, and was supported by Mr. Chamberlain, who expressly stated that he did not speak for the Government on the matter, although he quoted a great authority in favour of the change. When the noble Marquis criticised apparent differences of opinion it must be remembered that this was not the first time this session that such difference had been exhibited by the speeches of the noble Marquis and those of the noble and learned Lord by his side. They had nothing to do with any question as between old and new railways. A good many years ago, Parliament came to the conclusion that it was unsound in principle to sanction a nominal payment of interest which was only a return of a portion of the capital. The matter certainly ought to be carefully considered; and he could not see why the necessary consideration should not be obtained by the simple adoption of the amendment of the noble Lord behind him. He could not conceive any question which could possibly bear less of a party character than this, and individually he should vote for the noble Lord's amendment. Earl Caiens was under the impression that this was a proposal which was supported by the Government, and that the Government came there in order to maintain, as they had maintained in the other House, the alteration of the Standing Order. Earl Geanville said he did not state that it was not supported by the Government as a Government. Earl Caiens remarked that Mr. Chamberlain was President of the Board of Trade, and in that capacity he was at the head of the Eailway Department in this country. Did the noble Earl mean to say that it was competent for the President of the Eailway Department to support a proposition in the House of Commons, and that he did not commit his colleagues by doing so? He was entitled to view this as a proposition of the Government, and he had ventured to suggest an amendment which would remove some of the objections to the proposal. The Earl of Kimbeeley said this was not a proposition of the Government. It had never been the custom of the Government, as a Government, to take up questions relating to the Standing Orders. Such questions were left to the discretion of each House of Parliament. The Earl of Eedesdale's motion was then negatived. The Marquis of Salisbuey suggested that, as the noble Lord had now attained his main object, it would be expedient for him to withdraw his amendment. After some conversation, Lord Auckland's amendment was withdrawn.

Enclosure 7 in No. 3. [Extract from the Times, 2nd May, 1885.] Debate in House op Commons.—Eegent's Canal Bill. Me. Dodds moved the second reading of the Eegent's Canal, City, and Docks Eailway Bill. Sir J. Pease moved, That it is not expedient to pass any Eailway Bill which involves the payment of interest out of capital during the construction of works pending the introduction of a public measure on this subject, as recommended by a Committee of this House in 1882, especially where such a Bill practically makes the alteration of the Standing Orders of this House retrospective in their action. He said -he had taken up this question entirely as a matter of public duty. He was in no way influenced by what might be the opinion of the railway associations in the matter, nor had he anything to do with the shareholders. The position he took up was simply one of principle, and had nothing whatever to do with the railway contentions of the district. Ho appealed to the House simply on the principle that it was wrong to pay interest out of capital during