The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-27 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS July 26.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES, ACT AMEND-
BILL
MENT .
The Earl of lIARROWBY having presented several
petitions against this Bill,
Earl GRANVILLE moved the third reading of it.
The Earl of EGLINTON thought that the Bill was
one which their Lordships ought not to be called upcn to
pass at that late period of the session, as they had not
time to discuss it fairly. Bt sides conferring powers on
the Railway Commissioners which were at present ex-
ercised by Committees of their Lordships' House, it pro-
posed so far to alter Lord Dalhousie's Act as to give the
power of dissolving the company, not to a majority of
shareholders. but to three-fifths of those present at the
meeting. He thought that the Bill would operate most
injuriously, and should, therefore, move that it be read
a third time that thy three months.

Lord REDESDKLE opposed the third reading, on
the ground that it wuuld inflict injury on landholders
upon whole Estates uncompleted railways were ab.in-
doned.

Lord BEAUMONT thought every facility ought to
be given for the dissolution of such companies who had
undertaken any of the works, but that in justice to land-
owners, caution ought to be used where works had been
carried out.

Earl GRANVILLE said the Bill did not infringe on
the privib ges of ParliarEent. With respect to the re-
quired majority of three-fifths of the shareholders, it
was not proposed that they should have the power of
dissolving the company, but merely of applying to the
Railway Commissioners for leave to dissolve.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said it appeared to
him that after their Lordships had passed a number of
Acts of Parliament in different sessions, absorbing mil-

lions of property, and interesting such a vast number of
persons, they were now by this Bill about to tnable the
railway companies to repeal all these Acts.—(llear.)
and wipe away the whole of the property which had thus
been invested on the faith of those Acts.—(Hear, hear.)
It might have been very right to invest the Commissioners
with the power which they now possessed by Act of
Parliament, but their Lordships then had sufficient time
to consider the matter.—(Hear, hear.) That, however,
was quite out of the question on the present occasion,
when the second reading of the Bill was proposed within
three or four days of the prorogation.—(hear, hear.) It
was impossible that their Lordships could give the mea-
sure that consideration to which it was entitled.—(Hear.)
Lord STANLEY entirely concurred in the objections
which had been taken to proceeding with this Bill. If
their Lordships a ished to stop the present vicious prac-
tice of passing measures without due consideration, there
was no measure which could be checked with greater
propriety. In the first place, he was not aware of its
immediate urgency. In the second place, he saw no rea-
son why it should not have been brought under their
Lordships' consideration long ago, for there was nothing
to prevent its origination in that Honse.—(hear, hear.)
He found among the standing orders one which he con-
sidered peculiarly applicable to the present course of
proceeding. On the sth of May, 1688, upon a report
being made by the Lord Chamberlain of a Bill being
very long and containing too many paragraphs,
coming up from the House of Commons on a day
too near the day of adjournment, he was commanded
by the Committee to enter upon the journals of the
[louse that no such argument should be used here-
after as had been used then, that in consequence of the
shortness of time for passing the Bill they precipitated
the passing thereof, that they agreed to the report, and
ordered it to be entered upo❑ the roll of standing orders
of the House.—(Hear, hear.) It might be right to faci-
litate the abandonment of these speculations. But he en-
tertained some doubt as to the propriety of facilitating
the abandonment of projects ostensibly undertaken for
the benefit of the public, and for which such extraor-
dinery powers had been given. But if their Lordships
thought it right to give such facilities, and to save the
parties from the expense of a Bill, surely when a general
measure of this nature was proposed, there ought to be
a full opportunity of discussing the conditions and pro-
visions under which the power proposed to be given
was to be entrusted to the Commissioners.—(Cheers.)
A considerable number of petitions had been presented
against the Bill, and none i❑ its favour. Under all the
circumstances he wished that her Majesty's Government
would not press the Bill further during the present ses-
sion; but that if they considered such a measure neces-
sary they would introduce it at such period as would
enable their Lordships to give it full and ample consi-
deration.—(Hear.)

. _
The Earl of HARROWBY was understood to recom—
mend the withdrawal of the Bill.

Earl GREY said, after the opposition which had been
manifested, ho could hardly expect the Bill to pass—
(Hear, hear)—but by rejecting it he believed their Lord-
ships would do great injury to the parties on whose be-
half they appeared to be interested. If this Bill gave
power to jthe Commissioners without sufficient control,
undoubtedly it would be objectionable, but it did no such
thing. In many cases railways had been commenced
without adequate means for their completion, and in
such cases the most beneficial course for all parties, and
especially for the landowners, would be the abandon-
ment of the project. The Bill would give power to the
Commissioners to consider each individual case, and
award compensation to the various parties. He was far
from denying that the Bill was open to the objection urged
by the Noble Duke. It was quite true that Parliament
having passed thcc,s. Rills, it was a great power to entrust
to the Commissioners to set them aside; nut that wo• an
inconvenience resulting, not from the passing of this Bill,
but from the reckless manner in which railway Bills
were passed four years ago.—(Hear, hear.)
Earl GRANVILLE suggested the adjournment of the
debate until to-morrow, in order that further considera-
tion might be given to the subject, as some of the pro-
visions of the present Bill had some connexion with
another Bill which had been before their Lordships.
Theplarquis of CLANRICARDE believed that no
case had hitherto occurred in which the Commissioners
had abused their powers, and did not conceive they were
likely to do so if the powers now proposed should be
placed in their hands. He believed the measure would
be of great advantage to all the parties concerned in
railways.
Lord BROUGHAM deeply lamented the necessity of
stopping this Bill, and for this reason—Parliament was
responsible for the mischief which had been caused by
the indiscriminate passing of railway Bill, -en ought
to endeavour to devise some mode of remedying that
mischief.—(Hear, bear.)
After some further conversation,
The Earl of EGLINTON withdrew his amendment,
and the debate was adjourned until to-morrow (this day).
BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord BROUGHAM, this Bill went
through Committee without amendments.
REGIIIENTAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES BILL.
On the motion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, this
Bill was read a third time and passed.