8.—12

60

the construction of the works. This line was about eighteen and a half miles long, and he understood that the share capital to be raised was £6,600,000. The Bill provided for the raising of an additional sum with the consent of Parliament—£66o,ooo —which is to pay interest out of capital during the construction of the works. The total amount of capital involved which would be handed over to the care of the directors would be about £11,150,000. Immediately to the north of the proposed line was the North London Eailway. Over this line the North-Western Company exercised runningpowers. At the south-western end of the line was the Metropolitan main line, over which the Great Western line ran, and which was parallel with the Eegent's Canal line. The new railway would have to compete for traffic with those lines, and, after entering into competition with them, did the House think it likely, looking at past experience and at the large outlay upon the metropolitan railways, that the proposed railway would be able to pay 4 per cent, on the shares? The sole object of the Bill was to create £660,000, to be drawn from the shareholders subscribing the money, and then it was to be returned to them during the time the works were in progress ; and this was called interest on capital. He could not conceive any advantage whatever accruing to any class of shareholders from such a process. There might be some advantage to the directors; but, as far as he could see, it was absolutely without any advantage to the most deluded innocent who imagined he was going to get his money back out of capital. There seemed to be but very few shareholders in connection with this undertaking, and it seemed to him that the real object of bringing the Bill before the House was in order to obtain shareholders. In 1883 the House declined to pass a Bill brought in on behalf of the Hull and Barnsley Eailway. There were special reasons for passing this Bill, but the House declined to pass it, because it thought that the principle was a bad one ; and he was of opinion that the circumstances of that railway had justified the decision which the House came to at the time. Looking at this question as one of principle, he found that all our great financiers had objected to the principle of paying interest out of capital. Hume, Eicardo, Sir Charles Wood, Sir James Graham, and Sir Eobert Peel were all against the principle. The Marquis of Salisbury, a man of a singularly astute mind, and well acquainted with railway matters, had described it as a "proposal for enabling a number of innocent investors to practise upon themselves a not wholly innocent deceit." Lord Granville and Lord Kimberley were also of opinion that the payment of interest out of capital was an unsound principle. The laws dealing with this matter ought to be maintained as they were, and to repeal them, unless in very special circumstances, was to give countenance to a plan dangerous for the credit of the commercial community. Whenever this plan was resorted to, the House might be certain of two things—the rich and the knowing investor did not take tip those securities, while the poor and the ignorant did take them up. He maintained that this Bill was not in accordance with the Standing Orders at present existing before the House, and he hoped the House would affirm, as in 1883, that this principle was commercially unsound. Sir G. Goldney said he could not support the proposition of the honourable member. He considered it to bo a monstrous thing that people should not be allowed to take care of their own money, and should not be allowed to invest it in those concerns which they thought desirable. That line, he understood, was designed for the purpose of facilitating the conveyance of the workingclasses who w.ere employed in the metropolis to and from their homes at a cheap rate —an object of great importance in connection with the problem of how to house the labouring population properly ; and the only argument against the line was that there were certain other railways with which it would run in competition. He trusted that Parliament would not consent to stifle a Bill which he held ought to be inquired into through the ordinary tribunal established by the House. Colonel Smith urged that the Bill should be allowed to go before a Select Committee, instead of being disposed of on the second reading. Sir J. Ellis opposed the motion of the honourable member for South Durham, contending that most undertakings in this country paid interest during the execution of their works. If the Board of Works, in making a new street, were not to pay interest until the new street was open, they would have either to pay a higher interest on their bonds or to issue their bonds at a much lower rate. * Moreover, with the provisions that were contained in the amended Standing Order No. 167, there was no reason whatever why that or any other railway should not be allowed to pay a reasonable rate of interest while it was being constructed; and it would be a great injustice if the line were not permitted to be made. Mr. Chambeblain rather regretted that his honourable friend had thought it necessary to move that amendment. The course proposed by his honourable friend was inconvenient, and would be attended with considerable disadvantage. They were not now dealing with one of those bogus companies about which his honourable friend was so anxious. That was a very large and important concern, involving a capital of something like £10,000,000, and it was intended to connect the whole of the docks at the east end of London with the Great Northern, the Midland, and the North-Western Eailway; and therefore that was an enterprise of first-rate importance in regard to the convenience of trade. If, moreover, that capital was raised, a very large amount of employment would be given to the working-classes of London ; and just now, when there existed a depression of trade, it would be a serious thing to throw any obstacle in the way of such employment being afforded. Why did his honourable friend propose to take the unusual course of refusing to allow a Select Committee to consider the provisions of that Bill ? It was, as he said, because the company proposed to pay interest on capital. The honourable member, then, was proposing by a side-wind to reverse the solemn decision of the House; because the whole question of whether such companies should be allowed to pay interest out of capital was decided in June, 1883, by the House, when it passed the amended Standing Order permitting that practice. It was true that about a fortnight later the Hull and Barnsley Eailway Bill was thrown out on the second reading; but that was because it proposed a larger rate of interest than was sanctioned, and did not conform to the Standing Orders. But that did not prevent the construction of the Hull and Barnsley Bail-