The Ayes and the Noes on the Marquess of Granby's Amend- ... The Ayes and the Noes on Sir J. Graham's Amendment to the ... 950 ... The Ayes and the Noes on Mr. O'Connell's Motion respecting W. The Ayes and the Noes on Mr. Fielden's Motion for the Second The Contents and Non-Contents on the Duke of Richmond's Amendment to the Second Reading of the Corn Importation The Ayes and the Noes on Lord Courtenay's Motion respecting the Andover Union Committee having the power from time to time to report its Proceedings to the House The Ayes and the Noes on Mr. Henley's Amendment to add cer- HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, IN THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE FOURTEENTH PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, APPOINTED TO MEET 11 NOVEMBER, 1841, AND FROM THENCE CONTINUED TILL 22 JANUARY, 1846, IN THE NINTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN VICTORIA. FOURTH VOLUME OF THE SESSION. HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, May 4, 1846. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-Reported. Exchequer Bills. Public Charities, against the Charitable Trusts Bill.-By the Bishop of Oxford, from Llangaffo, and several other places, against the Union of Saint Asaph and Bangor, but in favour of the Appointment of a Bishop to the See of Manchester. By the Bishop of Durham, from Bodmin and several other places, for the Better Observance of, and against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on, the Sabbath. By the Duke of Buccleuch, from Non-Freemen's Association of Edinburgh, in favour of the Burghs (Scotland) Bill.-By the Earl of Charleville, from Bridgewater, for the Appointment of a Committee of Inquiry relative to the Oath of Supremacy. From the Incorporation of Cordwainers in Glasgow, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Burghs (Scotland) Bill.-By the Earl of Wicklow, from Noblemen and others of Cork, for a Grant of Money in aid of Private Subscriptions to relieve the Distress in Ireland.-By the Bishop of Exeter, from School of East Retford, in favour of the Charitable Trusts liable to the Poor Rates.-From Bridgwater, against the Maynooth College Act.-By Lord Stanley, from Attorneys and Solicitors of Liverpool, against the Real Property Deeds Registration Act. RAILWAY COMPANIES DISSOLUTION ON BILL. N bringing up the Report of the Railway Companies Dissolution Bill, The EARL of DALHOUSIE, in reference to a discussion in Committee on this Bill, said he had no objection to grant a power of pre-emption to the parties who were opposed to the dissolution of a company; he did not think the right would be of any great value, as copies were deposited with the Board of Trade, at the Private Bill Office, and in the Parliament Office of the House of Lords, and from the last two tracings and copies could be taken; still he had no objection to give the right to purchase at a price to be fixed by the scrutineers. Another point suggested was the possibility of making an attempt to prevent the practice of purchasing scrip, with the view of operating to the dissolution of a particular company; and a noble Lord had recommended that every person on giving a vote at the meeting, to be called under the provisions of the Bill, should make an affirmation that he was pos B sessed of the scrip on the 31st of March | at all events, if the Government had looked anterior to the meeting. If the practice of into this subject properly at an earlier pepurchasing scrip for such a purpose should riod there would have been no difficulty in exist, undoubtedly it would be a great abuse; but after making every inquiry, and consulting with persons of experience, he felt it his duty to object to the introduction of such a clause. He did not believe that the requirement of any such affirmation would ensure the object, whilst he was of opinion that it would inflict injustice upon other parties. That scrip would be purchased for the purpose which had been described he did not doubt, but he had great doubts whether the practice could be carried to such an extent as to influence materially the existence of any trustworthy and important company. doing justice to all. He repeated, that something should be done to guard those which were bona fide from injustice. It would contribute to this object if all scrip purchased since the 31st of March were excluded from voting, for a great proportion of the shares bought since that period had been bought with the view of making a profit out of the winding-up. The noble Earl said this was impracticable, and that false declarations would be made. He (Earl Grey) could not assent to that conclusion. He had rather a better opinion of railway speculators than the noble Earl; and it was his belief that the great majoEARL GREY said, the statements of the rity of them would hesitate before they noble Earl confirmed him in the conviction ventured upon making a false declaration. that this Bill would work very great injus- He believed if a small penalty of, say 51., tice to many parties who were deserving were awarded for a false affirmation, there of the consideration of the House. There would be no danger of the risk being inwere lines projected to accommodate dis- curred to a considerable extent; but the tricts through which no railway passed, noble Earl said such a course would be and which would pay a good dividend, yet unjust; he would, however, remind their such lines, under this Bill, might be aban- Lordships that the whole principle of the doned because a majority of the projectors Bill was to do a great injustice to the few might have gone beyond their means. in order to do what they thought was just Such persons would be relieved by allowing towards the majority. Did the noble Earl them to wind up the company; but their mean that the Bill would operate unjustly associates, the prudent men, those who had towards the minority who had entered into gone into a legitimate speculation upon the the scheme with a bona fide intention of faith that they were joining men equally paying up their shares, and who were still prudent-these persons who were able to ready to carry the project into execution, pay the calls, who were ready to go on, if allowed? The principle on which the and who could establish before a Parlia- Bill was founded was, that the difficulties mentary Committee that the line would be of the present state of things were so great, remunerative, were compelled to sacrifice that though a hardship was inflicted upon the money they had already spent, and to some individuals, they were obliged to inrender the property entirely valueless. flict that hardship for the sake of the greater And this was done by an ex post facto law; good that they would thus do to the majofor when they embarked in the speculation, rity. He only asked them to deprive perthe law did not give the power to dissolve; sons who became possessed of their shares on the contrary, the subscription deed con- since the 31st of March of the right of tained an express stipulation to proceed. voting for the dissolution of the companies, So that on these people there was first because he had no doubt but that the major imposed the expense of " getting up" the part of these purchases had been made company, and then the cost of winding up, under the expectation and with the intenwhich he apprehended would not be very tion of sharing in the dividends that might light. That House never adopted a mea-be made after a dissolution. He asked sure more calculated to strengthen the monopoly of existing companies than this; for it would give to them the power of getting rid of the competition by buying up the shares. The fact was, the noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) has confined his attention exclusively to bubble companies in the preparation of this measure, and omitted all concern for the bona fide schemes; them to apply the same principle to these cases that they adopted with regard to the Parliamentary franchise. A man might become possessed of the oldest estate in the kingdom, and yet his purchase would give him no vote for a twelvemonth afterwards. That provision had been made because Parliament had found that the former system had been used in an improper manner attempted to deprive of the right of voting, would not have given such high prices as they had paid for their scrip; and, therefore, their Lordships would be committing a greater injustice against them, by depriving them of a right which they would otherwise possess, of being placed on a footing of perfect equality with other shareholders, than the injustice to which the noble Earl had alluded. Besides, even if the proposition of the noble Earl were agreed to, and if these parties were not allowed to vote at the meetings, they would, if their object were to injure the company, have an opportunity when the Bill passed of returning directors who would not permit the works to go on, in preparing for particular elections. The noble Earl said that many of the scripholders who would thus be excluded were so by inheritance or by marriage; but still did not the same principle apply to such persons who were not permitted to hold the Parliamentary franchise? With respect to the other right to which the noble Earl had adverted—namely, the right of purchasing plans, he would only say that he had never attached the slightest value to what was called the right of pre-emption in the plans. The plans themselves were of no real value whatever: but what he wanted was to give to the minority-to those who really wanted to go on with the project, the advantage, in some shape or other, of the money that had been already expended. A very large LORD KINNAIRD said, he thought the sum of money had been paid away, and best answer to the noble Lord who had that money would be altogether wasted if just sat down would be found in the case this Bill were allowed to pass into law. of the London and York Railway, where a What he did think, and what he still minority of those who had been before Parthought would be fair and reasonable, was liament last year were permitted, with a that those persons who wished to keep the number of new scripholders who had since company together, should, after the retire-joined them, to come again before Parliament of the dissentients, be able, if they could, to fill up the ranks in the list of shareholders, and to come before Parliament in another year, with some preference, at all events, over new opponents. If these were not permitted, existing companies that now in so many instances opposed these schemes, could, after breaking them up by the purchase of their shares, in order to acquire votes against them, come before Parliament the next year with the very plans which they now sought to destroy. He could not help repeating that it was his opinion, if the Government had applied themselves to the past, and confined themselves to the real difficulty which they were called upon to meet, that they could have devised some means of mitigating for this Bill to enable them to dissolve ing the evil. LORD REDESDALE supported the Bill. He could see no grounds why the minority of a dissolved company should be allowed a prior claim over any particular tract of country, for to this he considered the proposition of the noble Earl came. With regard to the suggestion of putting restrictions on parties who had purchased scrip since the 31st of March, he did not think that the plan was practicable, and besides, he thought it would not be just. Though they gave powers to these parties, it should be recollected that they also gave powers to the other scripholders which they had not before possessed. It should not be forgotten that the persons whom it was ment with the same plans, He was not very sanguine as to the success of this Bill in materially lessening the number of schemes to be brought before Parliament. He said he would not fatigue their LordThe EARL of DALHOUSIE replied. ships by a repetition of arguments which had been so often urged upon their atten tion. He should, however, remind the noble Earl, who had argued as if the Bill were to affect only the four hundred and odd schemes now before Parliament, that there were upwards of 500 projects that had not their Bills pending, and in all these the scripholders were anxiously wait their companies. The noble Earl, in arguing for the rights of the minority, appeared to forget that there was another party, namely, the public at large, deeply interested in the dissolution of these schemes; and while they would not do any Amendments reported. |