COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 28 May 1894)

§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
said, he did not intend to oppose the Bill, as he understood from the Secretary of State for India that it was an important and urgent measure for India. There were, however, one or two matters he should like to refer to when the clauses were reached.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, that Sub-section 1 said that the railways should be "actually completed" before the section applied. Did that mean that the whole railway should be completed, or simply a portion of it? The clause seemed to be vague. The payment of interest out of 1495 capital should not extend to all the railway systems, but to certain sections. He should like an explanation of Sub-section 4, which said that a certain part of a railway might be in running order, and still payments out of capital might continue to be made as interest. That seemed to him a questionable arrangement. He should also like to have an explanation of Sub-section 6, which said that no such interest should accrue to any shareholder during the time which any calls might be in arrear. That seemed a drastic provision. Perhaps the Secretary of State would tell him that he had power to consider details, and that he would rectify any injustice which might be done.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,) Wolverhampton, E.
said, that the railways mentioned in Sub-section 1 were railways actually completed and open for traffic. As to net earnings of railways, he intended Sub-section 4 to be explanatory of Subsection 1, its object being to prevent interest being increased beyond 4 per cent. As to the 6th sub-section, no doubt it was drastic, but drastic legislation was required in this matter, and he was strictly following the legislation of this House with regard to English railways. He bad not gone beyond the Rule Parliament had laid down for the guidance of Committees in the House. The object of the Bill was to enable the Secretary of State in Council to exercise the same powers as a Committee of the House under Standing Orders. He was obliged to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bartley) for not opposing the Bill any further. It was true that at a time when labour and material was cheap it was fitting that the construction of railways, which were very much wanted in India, should be entered upon.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, on Report, he would consent to put in a clause to limit the period of the Bill? As he took it, the Bill was intended to last in perpetuity. He could not find any restricting period in it, and he thought that such a measure, which allowed an indefinite number of railways to be created, and allowed interest to be paid out of 1496 capital, should come before the House in 10 years, or some other period for revision. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider the point.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
I will consider the matter.