REPORT. (Hansard, 27 February 1888)

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

said, if it were in order to do so, without offering opposition, to ask for an explanation, he should like to do so. The explanation he desired had reference to the latter part of the Resolutions. The Secretary of State for India was authorized to raise £10,000,000 for the construction of railways through the agency of companies. This had the appearance of a departure from the policy of constructing railways by the Government, for the Resolution bound the Government to the construction through the agency of companies and not by the Government. The Committee which considered the matter a few years since recommended that both methods should be open to the Government. He was very much against using the agency of a Company, thinking it an expensive and a demoralizing system for the Government to borrow the money and commit the construction to a Company. But he did not desire to raise a debate after 12 o'clock upon this stage of the measure; he would simply ask whether the policy of the Secretary of State was that set forth in the Resolution, and was there to be no more direct construction by the Government.

§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham)

said, if the hon. Member would allow the formal stage to be taken, the Bill would then be printed and circulated, and then he would see exactly what was going to be carried out. He could assure the hon. Member that there was no intention on the part of the Secretary of State to depart in any way from the principle laid down by the Committee of 1884. This part of the Bill merely authorized the Government, when it was cheaper for the Government to borrow the money and lend it to the companies, to do so, instead of guaranteeing loans raised by the companies. It was not intended to supersede the action of Government, but only in borrowing to obtain better terms.