The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-21 00:00:00

LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.
The following is a more complete report ief the debate
in the House of Lords on the subject of the London and
I-tale 'Railway than we had apace to give yesterday.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE—My Lords, I have
here two petitions to present, to which I beg to call your
Lordships attention. These petitions refer to the
London and Yet k Railway Bill, now in this House. The
one petitiener.'prays for a revival of the Committee
which sat upon the Bill last year, and the second
petitioner prays for the appointment of another Com-
mittee to inquire into the validity of the subscription
deed of the Company, or rather into the' admis-
sibility of the new subscription contract. S
iy
Lords, the paints which these petitioners raise, ere
points of law rather than of fact, or indeed of anythit'g
-Isa ;' end under such circumstances, and consitleriii
•.he legal character of the points raised, I certainly think
hat your Lordships ought to appoint a Committee to
sear the matter in these points argued by couns,- 1.
tt appears from the . petitioners themselves, that a
-onsidarable number—some hundreds of persons,
eho subscribed the last subscription contract, are
iiet of the parties who have subscribed the new one; and
Lords. I donht very much that they are te-
es .;; I doubt very much that they can be legally '
•eased from the engagements entered into when they
stied the old deed. There is another point, also, to
,e,eh I would wish your Lordships' attention,
:rely, that the parties signing the new. contract claim
IYIO before your Lordships as the proprietors of de-
eits peid by the former subscribers. Now, I think, that
will be a question, whether any such transfer can be
gal, or even received by your Lordships' House as such,
Atomic+ as it implies an evasion of the Stamp Act.
ihese, toy Lords, I apprehend are points which ought to
le clearly seen into by your Lordships. I, therefore, beg
to givs notice, that I shall to morrow move for a Com-
mittee to inquire into the subject matter of these petitions.
I shall fix en any day on which we cam have tee attend-
(rice of the Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham) whom
[ do not at present see in his place, as 1 eimoider it
ughly essential that he, with other Noble and Learned
Lards, should hear the matter argued: If not a technical
Hestion, I think that the new subscription deed ought
.t to be admitted. The contract deed may csrtitinly be
:elided by the addition of a lumber of Dames. but
• ':oilier your Lordships will allow a large number of
•.e:.; to be withdrawn, is another matter. The peti-
;tiers are James Tyler, against the London and York
, and George Pry me, who prays to be released from
ee• engagements entered into under the former sub-
iption contract.
Lord BEAUMONT2—What have we to do with the
subscription contract of last year? We have only to
do with the subscription deed now before your Lord-
hips' House. As for the transfer,. there is nothing in
;hat; there is no transfer. How can there be a transfer
from that which does-net exist? The subscription con-
tract of last year is just so much waste paper.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE—PreciseIy so;
and it is into the validity of the new Subscription
deed that the petitioners pray that your Lordships
shall appoint a Committee to inquire. The present
promoters of the London and York Railway came be-
fore your Lordships as the very same parties who ac-
quired their Bill before the House of Commons last
year, and thus they will in the ordinal y course be te-
Hived from all preliminary proceedings. That, my Lords,
is precisely the point I wish to hest- argued by counsel,
and the reason why I intend to m is, ter the appoint-
ment of this Committee. Surely, my Lords, in a matter
ef this magnitude, the time necessary to hear two mode-
rately short speeches on either side will not he considered
thrown aa ay. The question is, in nay opinion, an important
aed very necessary one fir your Lordships to decide be-
ore proceeding further with this Bill.
Lord BEAUMONT—My Lords, the promoters of
this: Bill for the Lot ;don and York Rail -sac were allowed,
by an order of your -Lordships' House, to resume the
situation in which they were placed immediately before
tee 'prorogation of Parliament lest sestiou, ou conditien
teat they produced this session a hew contract deed.
That was the understanding at the close of last session.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY—My Lords, I per
if.ttAly eie,cur in the (Onion which has been expressed
e• ie a obis Lord opposite in the course of this discus-
,
He eesidered, a- I do, that it would be impos-
tile for the promoters of this Bill to comic before your
erdships' House with the same contract deed as that
e•eich they had last year. There may have been many
since then, and man, sales of shisres may have
,alten place by those who subscribed the original sub-
Atription deed between the date of their signature and
the Inesent session of Periament. But, independent of
these circumstances, there is an end of the contract of

Isst year.
Earl GREY—My Lords. I do not think the present is
fitting occasion for the discussing this subject ; but I
-will still say that I think it quite mcessary that the pro
maters should produce to your Lordships an entirely
new contract deed. I consider the old one is per'eci ly
invalid, and the same
„person who sign( d the deed of
last year could not be found to sign one of this year.
Many of those persons may be dead ; others may have
removed ; and others, again, have in all probability dis-
posed of their shares. I, therefore, think that it is quite
necessary that a new deed should he produced.
Lord MONTEAGLE—My Lords, I quite concur in
what has fallen from my Noble Friend. There can be
no doubt that the original contract deed must be in-
-mild, in consequence of deaths, removals, and shares
laving been disposed of; the promoters theretbre ought
.o be called upon to produce an entire new deed,
old should not be allowed to adopt the old one in the
'.,resent session. It will be in the recollection of many of
-our Lordships. that the contract deed of last year ens
3hallepgod, ice consequence of its having been stated that
sealpraeocers has been resorted to in gi tting, up that deed.
A Committee was, in consequence of this, appointed tee
-,xemine into the subject, but the prorogation of Parlia-
meio, as your Lordships will remembsr, prevented That
onamittee from proceeeling and raking their report.
The contract deed, which was introduced into Psrlia-
went by the preMoters of this Bid, contains only two
butidre..l and eighLy names out of the whole tiumbek that
originally signed it. The numbers who had sighed the
deed prevhusly were tw,slv, hundred. Tho pr 'sent
deed is a substitution of an entire!) nsw isstrunecot in
the place of the ,del subscription contract. Youl.. rd-
ships will not fail to bear in mind what is ;ntitided by
the standing orders of this House. The intention 01
those order; is this : they state " That whereas.
by the lateness of the se7,,e;, .it is not pox-
..hle for Parliament to p-rf!,rai its functions
v. ith reference to ail the r ; ways submitted tc
the consideration of the House ; (I n therefore ceoi•
-ants to allow parties pronuet ng lireilway Bills to
,d,,ind in as favourable a po,ition as it the session had
been protracted." In short, my Lo. d., that Bills only'
partially proceeded with last session should be taken
up in the ensuing or the present se,,ion, at the point
where they were discontinued. By this it is evident
hat parties would obtain great advantages, be they
sould not be compelled to commence entirely anew
it the next session or this, and because they would
to saved from the additional expense that would
here by be incurred. But if, my Lords, patties are to
se allowed to substitute a different intrunisnt to the
)lie partially proceeded with, thus protecting themselves
from the charges which mizlit he brought against them,
whether true or false, and consequently putting them-
selves in a letter condition to obtain the sanction of
Parliament to their measures, it would be an injustice
to the c -,mpeting, interests. You did not intend tee do
that. If such a proposition had b'sen suggested, this
House would not, I am sure, have acceded to it. Ir is
true you might have said "We will not allow your Bill
io stand over, unless your deed .is produced in the same
state as when discontinued in • this session." But it is
evident that upon the fete of it, it was only allowed to
stand over upon that understanding.
The Duke of RICHMOND—My Lords, in my opinion
the appointment of a Committee would be very useful,
because I consider that the matter should be fully in-
ve tigated. But suppose, my Lords, that the old deed
had been altered—suppose that fresh parties had put
their names to the subscription contract, your Lordships
must bear in mind that those persons who originally
signed the deed didso upon the understanding that the Bill
should be passed during the last session ; and as it was
riot passed, I think the parties who originally signed that
deed might have withdrawn their names from the origi-
nal contract into which they had entered, upon the
ground that the Bill did not pass during the period in
hish they expected it would have received the sanction
of Parliament. They may possibly have -lost money in
railway transactions, or they may perhaps have fund it
inconvenient to fulfil the engsgemcnts into which they
had entered. My Noble Friend (the Marquis of Clanri-
carde) must consider that if a man can be held liable for
the payment of ten thousand pounds this session, which
he only contracted to pay if a certain Bill received the
sanction of Parliament during the last session, it would
be an act of serious injustice if a man was to be held re-
spOnsible by the law for the fulfilment. Such contract,
although I do not think that the law courts would so
decide, I should think a case of extreme hardship. As I
never held a single share, I cannot be considered by
'your Lordships as speaking other than as a disintereeed
person on the subject. Besides, your Lordships should
bear in mind, that owing to the great number of railway
projects which have been brought forward since last
session, some of the parties who originally signed the
subscription deed might think proper to withdraw from
the railway under consideration, and invest their money
in some of the new projects which have been brought
under the notice of Parliament this sessio:.
Übe Marquis of CI, ANRIC A IMF, shall rot
det in your Lordships for any length of time, by enter-
ing tutu a discussion of the question raised by the Noble