§ On the Report of Amendments to this Bill,
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he desired to ask Lord Ribblesdale whether he could now answer the question put to him in the Standing Committee that arose upon Clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 607 provided that the redemption of their liability by the Treasury under this Act should not affect the obligation of the Company, and so on, as regarded the efficient maintenance and the working of the tramways, and it went on to provide, that if the Board of Trade informed the Lord Lieutenant that such obligation was not fulfilled, he should declare the same, and until he declared that it had been fulfilled the Grand Jury were to raise, and pay to the Crown annually, a sum equal to 3 per cent. upon the capital sum the Treasury had redeemed. What was to be done with that 3 per cent.?
§ LORD RIBBLESDALEwas sorry he had not been able to answer this question before, but he was now in a position to do so. The 3 per cent. was to be paid into the Exchequer, and was not to be held up with a view to its increasing in body and bulk. It was a penalty payment, as it were, for the non-fulfilment of the obligation of these tramways being kept in efficient and good working order The whole of the Bill, of course, proceeded upon that understanding, and the commutation of the Treasury liability of 2 per cent. would not be undertaken unless part, as it were, of the exchange value of that redemption was the efficient and good working of the tramways. The object of the clause was, that the Treasury should be placed in no worse a position under the Bill than it was now. At present, under the Tramways Act of 1883, the Treasury was liable for 2 per cent. of this guaranteed interest, but it was only liable for that if the tramway was not in good working order. If the provisions of this Bill were taken advantage of, the Treasury would borrow at 3 per cent., and at 33½ years' purchase, and of course borrow on the understanding that the tramway was kept in good order. If the tramway, however, were dropped, or kept in bad order, they did not wish to be this 3 per cent. out of pocket, but required that that should be paid back by the grand jury. There was a question raised on Clause 1 which he would answer now. It was what "public interest" meant. A line in the 608 first clause was "public interest whether by means of directors or otherwise." "Public interest" meant the grand juries, because if the provisions of the Act were taken advantage of, the grand juries would become the owners of a very much larger proportion of the capital of those companies than they were at present; and, consequently, as they paid the piper, they claimed a greater right to call the tune, and required a greater control than they at present had. He did not think there was any intellectual difficulty in understanding the word "directors."
§ LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that the explanation of the noble Lord was quite clear. This was a matter of course affecting the localities and the ratepayers, and he assumed that those who were looking after their interests in the negotiations with the Treasury, and the negotiations with the House of Commons looked after this matter too. As far as he recollected the discussion in the House of Commons this was a consent Bill. He understood that the parties most interested had threshed the subject out on the spot, and had arrived at the conclusion that the locality would make money. He also understood that the Treasury had made up their minds that they too would make money. Everyone, therefore, being satisfied the Bill passed. Personally, he thought that Clause 3 was rather loosely drawn, for the Lord Lieutenant was given the power of declaring that he was satisfied with the efficient working of the tramways, in which case the 3 per cent. payment would stop. He supposed the localities were satisfied that they all put such pressure upon the Lord Lieutenant that he would be reasonably satisfied on this question.
§ Report of Amendments agreed to.