The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

rio us E. OF I.ORDS, March 16.

The LORD CHANCELLOR teek his scat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'cljck.
Lord FEVERSHAM presented a petition from the
guardians of the poor of the York Union, praying that
measures might to taken for the immediate repeal of
the Poor Removal Act.
The Bishop of CHESTER presented a petition against
the Tithe Commutation Act.
BIRMINGHAM AND OXFORD RAILWAY.
Lord STANLEY said that ho had been requested by
some of the shareholders of the Birmingham and Ox-
ford Railway to present a petition with reference to
that which had been brought under their Lord-
ships' notice by his Noble and Learned Friend,
ird Lyndhurst) and in reference to which he had
given notice of his intention to move a Commit-
tee that night. He hoped that he might be able to
state what the petitioner said with the same clearness
with which it had been stated to their Lordships by his
Noble and Learned Friend, but he did not think that
the company had chosen well their representative, be-
cause, although he had considerable experience in the
passing of railway Bills through Parliament, he had
no knowledge of their interior workings ; he had
never attended any meeting of any description of
railway proprietors or shareholders. These petitioners—
the parties before them who were in truth interested in
the question were—on the one hand the Great North-
Western Railway, and on the other hand, the Great
Western Railway Company. The petitioners in this
case were the shareholders in the Birmingham and Ox-
ford Railway, and they held shares long before the
passing of the Act, and they were consequently not
open to any of the charges which had been
brought against other shareholders. There were
some facts upon which he did not think that
there was any dispute. In the first instance, the
Birmingham and Oxford line, which was the subject of
so much discussion, was a line contemplated by the
Grand Junction and the Birmingham and Liverpool
Railways. The Great Western, at the time of that
union, was in rivalry, and he might say in hostility, to
Birmingham Company, who were the
the line. hat company,
a promoter of the
rstoofbe
line, and withdrew from the management of
originalthe
however,n dopnr
ceasedoamn odt e
it, and established an arranement by which the
London and Birmingham formed a union as the Great
Northern and Western. The Birmingham and Oxford
then obtained a Bill as an independent line, subject to a
provision that the Great Western Railway Company
should have the right to purchase the line; and in the
event of no agreement being come to by the proprietors
and directors of the two companies, they were to have
the right to make use of it, without purchase,
subject to any agreement that could be made.
At the time for passing this Bill the directors of the
Birmingham and Oxford were in the interest of the
Great Western Company, and they entered into
arrangements to make over the Birmingham and Ox-
ford, and a continuous line, the Birmingham, Wol-
verhampton, and Dudley, to the Great Western
Company. The newly formed shareholders had
not been permitted the privilege of voting in con-
sequence of the lateness of the period at which the
certificates were issued, while original shareholders,
who had no longer any interest in the companies, ex
ercised a right of voting. The result of the arrange-
ment with the Great Western Company was, that the
shares of these companies rose, and the directors, taking
advantage of the market, sold out 3,000 out of
their 4,000 shares at a premium of 10 per cent..
the proprietors of the Birmingham and Oxford Com-
pany, many of a horn, he slid not conceal from their
Lordships, were also connected with the Grano
Junction Company, being dissatisfied with this
arrangement, and having received another offer,
which they considered more advantageous, they
protested against the transfer of the line to the
Great Western Company. What the Grand Junction,
or rather the North-Western Company, proposed to do
was this—they did not seek to set aside, and had no;
sought to set aside, the right of the Great Western
to purchase the Birmingham and Oxford line, it
they could do so with the consent of the
shareholders, neither did they seek to set aside, nor had
they sought to set aside, the right which the Great
Western also possessed of working over the line. The
Great Western had offered 10/. per cent., and the
North-Western subsequently offered 15/., but their
offer was not founded upon the basis that they
(the North-Western), in the event of becoming the pur-
chasers, should interfere with the powers which the
Great Western possessed, but founded upon the basis
that the Great Western should not have the power of ex-
cluding others from working over the line. They proposed
to make an arrangement by which the North-Western
company should have the use of their line, and work
over it in conjunction with the Great Western. On the
4th of December, previous to the issue of the new shares,
and before those to whom
.they belonged had the
right of voting, a meeting was called, at which only
21 attended, and at which a remonstrance was entered
into by many of those present, who wished to have the
meeting postponed until the new shareholders became
bond fide shareholders, and had a right to vote ; but
the proposition was negatived by the directors of
the company, who adopted the original offer, and
who had acted throughout in opposition to the
opinion of the 40,000 or 50.000 who held shares
in the Birmingham 60 Oxford Company. Now, in
consequence of this arrangement, large sums had beau
made by the directors. They put their shares into
the market, and sold them at immense premiums. Ile
did not think that the parties had any right whatever to do
so ; it was against the powers of their own Act, and the
subject would be brought in due course before the Corn.
mittee of the House of Comtaor,s, and if they decided
upon the measure being proceeded with, their Lordships.
would have an opportunity of deciding upon it. Pro-
ceedings had, he understood, been set on foot. by the
shareholders in a court of equity upon the subject.
When this Bill should be brought before Parliament,
the matter must be investigated before a Committee of
the whole House of Commons, and should that Bill ever
come up to their Lordships' House, their Lardshipa
would have an opportunity of searching into the matter,
and therefore the petitioners saw no reason for their
Lordships departing from the ordinary course
of Parliamentary proceedings. The directors who
were instructed, and had sold all but a nominal amount
of shares at considerable profit to themselves, were the
parties who had brought in the Bill ; and before the
proper tribunal the question would be raised, whether
they had power to dispose of the line in the manner he
had related. It was asserted that the shares were bought
up by the capital of the North-Western Company, but he
was instructed that that assertion was abaolutelyineorrect;
but all these matters would be brought out at the proper
time and in the proper place. The petitioners, under
these circumstances, prayed their Lordships to adopt
one of two alternatives, either that the preliminary in-
quiry should not be made, or that it should be extended
to all the circumstances connected with the dispute, and
he thought their Lordships could not refuse one of them.
It appeared to him that the question should not be pre-
judged by coming before arommittee of their Lordships'
House. If his Noble Friend pressed for a Committee
he should be unwilling to put himself in opposition, hut
as at present advised he was not pre disposed to concur
in the motion of his Noble Friend.
Earl St. GERMANS concurred in the opinion of the
Noble Lord (Stanley) that it would be somewhat
premature, to
move the appointment of a Committee at
that time. lie could not see any reason why these gen-
tlemen should not be allowed to sell in the market as
other individuals were. He trusted that the Noble Lord
would not press the appointment of the Committee.
Lord BROUGHAM had some petitions to present on
the same subject,
but he would keep them back for a
little longer.—(Laughter.)
Lord 'HATHERTON denied that the directors
of the amalgamating companies were actuated by
merely mercenary motives in the disposal of these
shares, and the proof of this was to be found in the fact,
that while they realised only 10 per cent. from their con-
nexion with the Great Western, they were offered 15 per
cent. by the North-Western. He was very anxious to
advert to one part of his Noble and Learned Friend's
speech, of which he had no right to complain, and which
was stated with his characteristic perspicuity and clear.
ness. That point was one which the petitioners had m
doubt instructed him to state, and it was with reference

to the sale of shares by the directors of the Birmingham
and Oxford Company. He was not about to enter into
any long details upon the subject, but their Lordships
were fully aware that the Birmingham and Oxford
directors had been accused of endeavouring to make a

t'iversion, by attacking the directors of the other line
on the score of their shares. Such a system was pur-
sued, that the directors, found it impossible to hold any
influence by maintaining a large amount of shares; and
many of them sold their shares, in order to tran-fer
their interest into the Birmingham, Wolverhampton,
and Dudley line. No mercenary views were to be
attributed to the . directors because they sold those
shares, for they had fulfilled their agreement with the
Great Western at 101. per share, when the London and
North Western Company offered them 151. per share.
He would not go further into the subject then, for when
the discussion came on, on his Noble and Learned
Friend's statement, he should have another opportunity
of addressing their Lordships.
Lord LYNDHURST said that in addressing the House, he

was quite sure that when their Lordships were advised of' all
the circumstances of the case, they would be of opinion that
the facts stated in this petition, so far from at all contradict-
ing, to a great extent confirmed the case, and strengthened all
the facts which had already been stated to the House. There
were many points of controversy between them, but with re-
ference to the least important facts he should be silent, for the
Committee of their Lordships should appoint a Committee who
would investigate the facti upon the examination of witnesses.
It was not a dispute as far as he was concerned, for he did not
interfere in these matters unless the public interest was deeply
concerned, which it certainly was, in these measures. He had
no right to expect their Lordships to accede to his motion, un-
less it were affecting the public interest. He did consider that
interest deeply concerned in the course by which the North-
Western Company had forced these circumstances before the
consideration of their Lordships. There were several Noble
Lords then present who were not there on a former occasion,
and if the House would allow him, he would state
to them the several facts connected with the case.
Last session of Parliament a Bill was agreed to, sanctioning a
line of railway branching out of the Rugby and Birmingham
Railway, and proceeding to Birmingham. This was agreed to
as a rival or competing line to the old London and Birmingham
Railway. As might be expected, a great amount of opposition
was experienced by the promoters of the line, but it was
carried. As he had stated, on presenting the petition on this
subject on a former night, the principle on which the Commit-
tee proceeded in agreeing to the Bill, was that the line would
be one of great importance to the public as a rival and com-
peting line, and because of the overwhelming amount of
business on the other line. The Bill was carried through,
notwithstanding the opposition of the Birmingham Company,
and the Great Western Company was empowered to purchase
the company if they saw fit and came to terms with the ,
directors of the new line. The Birmingham Company bad
no right to purchase the line, as, by so doing, the

,
' '

advantage of a competing line to the public would be taken
away. Negotiations were entered into subsequently, which
ended in an a:reement wi h the (7:, at Western Company
pUrC%zss the line. To make Use aAreemeut valid, according to
the provisions of the Act, a meeting of the shareholders was re
quired, and on the 4th of December this was accordingly held.
At this meeting the agreement made by the directors was con-
firmed. The shareholders confirmed that agreement. At that
meeting a gentleman attended of the name of Moseley, who was
the avowed agent of the Birmingham Company, and offered a
much higher price than that offered by the Great Western.
Considerable discussion ensued, but the proprietors declined to
accede to the offer, as they had authorised the directors to enter
into an agreement with the Great Western. The Act of the
company did not authorise them to enter into an agreement
with the Birmingham Company. They therefore con-
firmed the original proposition for entering into an
agreement with the Great Western. On the 16th
o :December Mr. Glyn, the chairman of the Bir-
mingham Company, wrote a letter to the chairman of the
Oxford Company renewing the offer made at the meeting, but
it was again rejected. A meeting of the Birmingham proprie-
tors was called about that time, for the purpose of approving of
the conduct of Mr. Glyn and Mr. Moseley ; so that this was
purely a transaction of the Birmingham Company, who were
desirous to get possession of this Oxford Company, obviously
for the purpose of preventing that competition which it was
the wish of Parliament to establish. They would agree with
him that no public company could be guilty of more improper
conduct. Immediately after the 16th of December, when the
Oxford Company had given their final answer, the purchase of
shares by the Birmingham Company commenced • he said by
the Birmingham Company, because he was justified in saying
so, from reasons which he should adduce. They purchased
40,000 shares out of the 50,000, in order that they might ac-
complish their object by unfair means, when day found that
fair means had failed to effect it, that they might have the
direct control of the line. They were purchased in the course
of a month or six weeks ; not, certainly, in the name of the
company, but in the names of their agents. For instance, Mr.
Burdon, an agent of one of the Manchester banks, which
was connected with the Birmingham Company, purchased
3,000, not, it was true, on his own responsibility, but in con-
sequence of an indemnity which he had received from one of
the directors. What, then, was the next step pursusd by
the company ? They proposed to raise the number of the
directors to eighteen, and they also proposed that four of
them should go out. They appointed six of their own directors,
but some difficulty arose as to the mode in which the direc-
tors should go out, and the solicitor to the London and Bir-
mingham Company, in order to meet the difficulties of the
case, had actually summoned another special meeting for the
purpose of reducing the number of the directors.—(Laugh-
ter.) Thus, by means of all this complicated machinery, the
company had obtained the entire possession of the railway, and
would adopt it to suit their own purposes, notwithstanding
that this line was passed as a rival line to the North-Western,
and passed especially for the purpose of competition between
the two lines, and thus to tend to the benefit of the interests of
the public. He ' contended
.that Mr. Moseley was the
acting agent of the London and North-Western Company,
and the whole transaction had been carried on through Mr.
Moseley's solicitor. His Noble Friend Lad asked why not refer
the matter to the Railway Commissioners. He objected to
such a reference, because the Commissioners had no power to
examine witnesses ; while he equally objected to the matter
being referred to the Committee on the Bill in the other
House, because that Bill had no reference whatever to the Bir-
mingham and Oxford line. Under these circumstances he
must press his motion fora Committee of Inquiry. He had
no interest whatever on either side, and it was solely on public
grounds that he had made the motion.
Lord STANLEY begged to correct a statement made by
his Noble Friend. He (Lord Stanley) was sure there never
was any intention of reducing the number of directors. But
what did the Noble Lord propose to do ? Supposing that the
evidence taken in the House substantiated the statements of his
Noble Friend, what could he do then? Why, nothing; therefore
he thought that his Noble Friend should not press the motion.
He maintained that there was no monopoly sought to be main-
tained by the London and North-Western Company against
the Great Western Company. The 8,11 which was authorised
last session authorised the use of the line freely by the Great
Western Company. They could, if they thought fit, run
trains from Oxford to Birmingham and from Birmingham to
Oxford. But what did the Noble and Learned Lord seek to
do ? He seeks that the Great Western Company should ob-
tain possession of the line against four-fifths of the share-
holders, who were opposed to it. So far from the London and
North-Western Company seeking to exclude the Great
Western Company, they had tot the power to do so, as the
Act provided for the concurrent use of the line. If they
thought proper to go into an investigation, he considered they
would be losing valuable time, but if they did agree he trusted
that the Noble and Learned Lord (Lyndhurst) would state
what end he had in view by the inquiry.
Lord HATHERTON would trouble -the- House a few
minutes while he stated the reasons which had led him
to support the Oxford and Birmingham Railway Bill.
The proptietory and directors were almost the same. Their
object was to serve the same districts, and as they were sup-
ported by the same evidence, these two lines were the crea-
tion of public wants and opinion in that part of the kingdom.
His Noble Friend had t rld him that the Grand Junction was
originally the promoters of this line, and took an active interest
in it. They did so from a sense of the necessity of establish..
ing a competing line; with the London and Birmingham, be-
tween Birmingham and Oxford. The lines were supported by
all the principal towns of Birmingham, and so overwhelming
was the evidence given by these gentlemen in favour of the
line, as one likely to accommodate the manufactures of the dis-
trict, that the Committee both of this and the other House
unanimously sanctioned the railway. If the Great Western
should not, however, purchase the line, they were to be em-
powered to run trains on the line, no other company to be al-
lowed that privilege. If the North. Western Company
became the proprietors of the line they would
effectually! destroy that competition with the Great
Western which Parliament wished to create, as they
might by crowding the Birmingham line with heavy
mineral traffic prevent the rapid passage of passenger traffic on
the Oxford line. Both the Birmingham and Oxford and the
Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Companies refused
to accede to the proposition of the Birmingham Company.
Then came the offer of Mr. Moseley, a gentleman extensively
engaged in share transactions in Manchester and Liverpool,
and well acquainted with railway matters. He would not call
him the " mouth piece" of the Birmingham Company, as that
term had much displeased him at one of the meetings, but he
certainly appeared to be the agent of that company, as he took
a paper out of his pocket and offered certain terms in the name
of the North-Western Company, if they would consent to lease
their line to that company and to repudiate the Great Western.
But the proposition was scouted by the meeting ; and it was
most remarkable that a man of Mr. Glyn's standing, and of
his experience, should have so far forgotten himself as to have
repeated the offer. He would not enter info the legal view of
the whole transaction ; but to show the difficult position in
which the Oxford Company was placed he should state that
they had to deal with 40,000 shareholders, who represented
the North-Western Company, and who were determined to
abrogate the agreement with the Great Western, which had
been entered into in accordance with the Act tinder which the
line was to be constructed.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he was not disposed to per-
suade their Lordships to postpone or put off this inquiry, on
the sole ground that he was not able to see his way clear to the
remedy. It appeared to him that great irregularities had taken
place, not to say fraud, between these two companies, and he
thought that it was due to their Lordships, to the public, and-
to the companies themselves, that the inquiry shalt:se-take
place in another House, and that there would be no necessity
for their Lordships troubling themselves about it. With
respect to the language of the petitioners, that they
courted inquiry, he had never yet heard of any abuse, the
parties to which did not always pretend to court inquiry.
Then it was said that there was a Bill in another place, which
might come down there, or rather, he should say, come up
there---(A laugh)—and which also might not come there; oh,
but, said the Noble Lord, what signifies that, if it does not
come up here it will be inquired into elsewhere. He had great
confidence in that other place. He had the greatest respect
that it was possible to entertain towards that other place and its
proceedings, When he considered how it was made up of share-
holders who could not sit on this Committee but could on that,
and remembered the courtesies and compliments that passed
amongst themselves, he must confess that he had not confidence
in the proceedings, he would net say of that other place, but
of some other place; and that opinion had induced him to think
that they ought to keep the inquiry in that place.—( Hear and
laughter.) He thought, however, that the Committee ought
to be named by the Committee of Selection.—( Hear.)
The Marquis of LANDSDOWNE wished to know if the
Noble and Learned Lord who made the motion had any objec-
tion to allow the Committee to be named by the Committee of
Selection?

Lord LYNDHURST said he had no objection to the course
proposed.

Earl FITZ WILLIAM thought it was most desirable that
they should have an impartial Committee, but he doubted if a
proper Committee could be selected in the ordinary way. He
thought such a Committee would be too small. They ought
to have a large one, embracing as far as possible the various
conflicting views on the subject. It was a most important
question, as he plainly saw what the end of all this would be,
that the executive government would have, in a great measure,
to take the control of these great lines of communication into
their own hands. It was not to be borne that all the great
means of intercommunication in this country should fall into
the hands of three or four great companies. He was glad to
notice the feeling of their Lordships on this subject, as his only
desire in proposing to enlarge the Cominitio was to make it as
effective as possible.
Lord CAMPBELL asked Lord Brougham if he had any
other cases to bring forward ?
Lord BROUGHAM said he had some other petitions to
present.

Lord CAMPBELL suggested that the petitions had better
be presented, and the Committee appointed afterwards.
Lord LYNDHURST said that the authority on which he
had made certain statements in his address was that of Mr.
Moseley, the agent of the London and North-Western Com-
pany: _

• After a few words from Lord STANLEY, in explanation on
the Act of Parliament under which the agreement he referred
to in his soeech had been made,
Lord BROUGHAM presented two petitions of a similar
character to the one presented by Lord Lyndhurst, in reference
to the Bristol and Exeter and Crediton and Exeter Railway
Companies.
The motion for a Select Committee on the several schemes
named in the petitions was then agreed to.
CANAL NAVIGATION.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from cer-
tain canal shareholders, complaining of the difficulties they
now laboured under in regard to opposing railway companies,
and praying for a remedy.
LOAN BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
CONSOLIDATED BILL.
This Bill was also read a third time and passed.
IRISH POOR-LAW.
Lord MONTEAGLE gave notice that on this day week he
would move for a Select Committee to inquire into the best
mode of administering the poor-laws in Ireland, and especially
regarding out-door relief.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE 01 COMMONS. March 16.
The SPEAKER. took the Cbair at a few minutes before
Four o'clock.

NEW MEMBER.
Lord ALBERT CONYNCHAM took the oaths and his
seat for the borough of Canterbury.
IRISH POOR-LAW.
An HoN. MEMBER (whose name we could not learn)
presented a petition from the high sheriff and grand
of King's County apinst the proposed poor-law for
Ireland.

RAILWAYS IN IRELAND.
Mr. VESEY presented a petition from the board of
guardians of Queen's County, praying- that the House
would make such advances to those railways in progress
of construction as would afford employment for the poor
in their neighbourhood.
THE RAJA OF SATTARA.

Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition praying the
Ilouse to grant to the Raja of Sattara an opportunity
of examining the charges brought against him, and the
evidence adduced thereon.
LIGHT DUES.

Mr. FORSTER presented a petition from the mer-