SECOND READING. (Hansard, 1 June 1877)

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he had given Notice of his intention that after the second reading he should move that the Bill—which was unopposed—be referred to a Select Committee, of which four Members should be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of selection. The object of the measure was to authorize the raising of an additional sum of £50,000, with a view to the completion of the Tasmanian Main Line Railway, and it sought to obtain that sum by taxing the debenture holders, who had a guarantee from the Government of Tasmania to the amount of 10 per cent. But there were points in the scheme which did not appear to him altogether satisfactory. One was the absence of any adequate provision for the protection of the interests of the debenture holders, and the other the absence of any effectual provision for securing the application of the £50,000, when raised, to the completion of the line. Both these were important points which, he thought, should be submitted to the careful consideration of a Select Committee. The scheme was originally brought before the public by Mr. Albert Grant, and the contractors were Messrs. Clarke and Punchard. £650,000 had been raised, and in getting together that amount of capital an expenditure of £117,000 had been incurred. He did not desire to interrupt the progress of 1180 the Bill, but he thought it ought to be considered in the first instance by an experienced Committee.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
asked whether there was any precedent for thus interfering with matters concerning a self-governing Colony?

§ MR. RAIKES
said, the Bill was entirely a financial one. The Company, although carrying on the works in Tasmania, was an English Company, and the contractors were also Englishmen.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN
suggested that, as they were about to establish a precedent, the further consideration of the Bill should be postponed for a few days. He also asked whether there was anyone in the House who was responsible for the measure, and could give some explanation of it.

§ MR. CHARLES LEWIS
observed that the fact of the operations being carried on in a distant Colony was a mere incident in the case. The Company was an English registered Company, and as such was liable to the jurisdiction of our Courts.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
moved the Adjournment of the Debate, on the ground that a Bill of so much importance, affecting as it did Colonial statutes, required consideration before it could be further proceeded with.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.)

§ MR. RAIKES
accepted the proposal to adjourn the Debate, if that was the wish of the House. He did not think there was any substantial ground for fearing that the Bill would infringe upon the rights of the Colonial Legislature.