The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-20 00:00:00

c

and very necessary one for your Lordships‘to deirdtabe(--, •
fore proceeding further with this Bi4l.-
Lord BEAUMONT—My Lordi, the_ promoters of,.
this Bill for the London and York Railway were allowed, *
by an order of your Lordships' Meuse, to resumoak,
situation in which they were placed immediately be`•
the prorogation of Parliament last seasione on condition.
that they produced this session a neevacentract deed. -
That was the understanding at the cldse of la'sf'sessiem:-
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY—My Lords, I pee--
fectly concur in the opinion which has been expressed
by a Noble Lord opposite in the course of this discus-
sion. He considered, as I do, that it would be impost
sible for the promoters of this Bill to come before your
Lordships' House with the same contract deed as that
which they had last year. There may have been
deaths since then, and many sales of shares may have
taken place by those who subscribed the original sub-
scription deed between the date of their signature and
the present session of Parliament. But, independent of
these circumstances, there is an end of the contract of
last year.
Earl GREY—My Lords, I do not think the present is
a fitting occasion for the discussing this subject ; but I
will stilt say that Ithink it •
quite necessary that the pro-
moters should produce to your Lordships an entirely
new contract deed. I consider the old one is perfectly
invalid, and the stone person who signed the deed of
last year could not he found to sign one of tlOie year.
Many of those persons may he dead ; others may have
removed ; anti others, egue, have in ail probability dis-
posed of their shores. I, therefore, think that it is quite
necessary that a new deed should be produced.
Lord MON FEAGLE —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-
valid, in consequence of deaths, removals, and shares
having been disposed of; the promoters therefore ought
to be called upon to produce an entire new deed,
and should not be allowed to adopt the old one in the
present session. It will be in the recollection of many of
your Lordships, that the contract deed of last year was
challenged, in consequence of its having been stated that
malpractices has been resorted to in getting up that deed.
A Committee was, in consequence of this, appointed to
examine into the subject, but the prorogation of Parlia-
ment, as your Lordships will remt mber, prevented that
Committee from proceeding and making their report.
The contract deed, which was introduced into Parlia-4
ment by the promoters of this Bill, contains only two
hundred and eighty names out of the whole number that
originally signed it. The numbers who had signed the
deed previously were twelve hundred. The present
deed is a substitution of an entirely new instrument in
the place of the old subscription contract. Your Lord-
ships will not fail to bear in mind what is intended by
the standing orders of this House. The intention of
those orders is this : they state " That whereas,
by the lateness of the session, it is not pos-
sible for Parliament to perform its functions
with reference to all the railways submitted to
the consideration of the House ; and it therefore con-
sents to allow parties promoting Railway Bills to
stand in as favourable a position as if the session had
been protracted." In short, my Lords, that Bills only
partially proceeded with last session should be taken
up in the ensuing or the present session, at the point
e here they were discontinued. By this it is evident
that parties would obtain great advantages, because they
would not be compelled to commence entirely anew
in the next session or this, and because they would
be saved from the additional expense that would
thereby be incurred. But if, my Lords, patties are to
be allowed to substitute a different intrument to the
one partially proceeded with, thus protecting themselves
from the charges which might be brought against them,
whether true or false, and consequently putting them-
selves in a better condition to obtain the sanction of
Parliament to their measures, it would be an injustice
to the competing interests. You did not intend to do
that. If such a proposition had been suggested, this
House would not, I am sure, have acceded to it. It is
true you might have said " We will not allow your Bill
to stand over, unless your deed is produced in the same
state as when discontinued in this session." But it is
evident that upon the face 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-
vedigated. 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 theßill
should be passed during the last session ; and as it was
not 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
which they expected it would have received the sanction
of Parliament. They may possibly have lost money in
railway transactions, or they may perhaps have found it
inconvenient to fulfil the engagements 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 disinterested
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 session.
The Marquis of CLANgICARDE—I shall not
detain your Lordships for any length of time, by enter-
ing into a discussion of the question raised by the Noble
Duke (the Duke of Richmond.) It will be a question
whether you can recognise these deposits, because it is
not exactly clear whether they have been in a legal
way, or whether they are those of transferees or as-
signees, because they cannot show your Lordships the
proper stamped documents with respect to the transfer.
This, therefore, is a point which will be argued hereafter,
and I shall not detain your Lordships any further.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY—When the contract
comes to be considered by the Committee, they will
have to ascertain the legality of the deposits. (Hear.)
Lord REDESDALE—I must protest against the way
in which matters were carried on during the last ses-
sion with regard to the different railway Bills which
came before your Lordships—viz., the bringing before
your Lordships railway Bills which were hung up from
the previous session. Your Lordships will recollect
that I stood alone last session to protest against that
system of hanging up Bills as one that was highly unjust.
It is utterly impossible to treat this petition fairly.
This question was decided by the Standing ; Orders
Committee last year, and in all probability this London
and York Railway Bill would have been thrown out on
account of the condition of the contract deed. That
question has not been tried this year, and the parties stand
now in a more favourable position than they did last
year. Unquestionably it would be a great hardship for
them not to have been permitted to have carried on their
Bills last year, inasmuch as the session commenced later
than usual, and a considerable quantity of the time of the
House was consumed in the consideration of the railway
Bills. Ido hope, however, that the example which we
have now before us will induce us to prevent other parties
as much as they
possibleed to hang up their
from entertaining
willbeallowßills and
ndhpe thatporoceed
with
them in their partly advanced state instead of preferring
new Bills to the House.
Lord KINNAIRD—This, Iconceive, is a most impor-
tant matter as regards a line of railway to be called
" The Direct Northern Railway," the promoters of
which, I trust, will be fortunate enough to meet with
the favourable consideration of your Lordships. Now,
it is well known, that but for the fact of a new contract
deed being in existence, an amalgamation would have
taken place between these two companies. The Direct Nor-
thern is a new company, and we should therefore extend
to them some favour. If this new contract deed should be
declared invalid, an amalgamation will, in all proba-
bility, be the result, and then you will have to consider
two lines, the best of which can be adopted without in-
jury to either interest. There can be little doubt that
the Direct Northern is the line best adapted for the
wants of the country, for it is the most direct line from
the metropolis to York, and can be executed at much
less expense than the rival line. .1 hope, therefore, my
Lords, that this petition will be fairly considered.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE—Last session was occupied
for the greater part with the consideration of railway
Bills; and an enormous sum was spent in the prosecu-
tion of this project, and I believe that the result of an
inquiry would be satisfactory to the Committee, and I
think that it will be found that this matter has been con-
sidered in a manner highly creditable to the parties con-
cerned. That I believe my Lords, to be the result of
an inquiry made by the other House of Parliament.
Well now, my Lords, much delay having occurred
in consequence of the opposition offered to this
scheme, under such circumstances I cannot but think
that it would have been a great injustice on the part
of Parliament if it had refused to permit such proete.
ings as would secure to the promoters of the pro t_:
the same advantage and the same benefit as were eX-A
tended to other projectors during the last session::
And, my Lords, I cannot therefore go the length f•
of the Noble Lord on the cross benches (Lord Redei- •
dale), when he holds out a hope that no such proceed-
ings as the promoters in question pray for will be per-
mitted. But, at the same time, lain quite ready to say,
that where it can be avoided, Parliament should
not sanction this mode of proceeding. It would, how-
ever, unquestionably be a most inconvenient course ;
and I believe it to be a course very disadvantageous to
the public interests if this Parliament say that they will
not entertain a scheme, merely because it comes before
them precisely in the form in which it left Parliament
the preceding year. My Lords, I believe that there are
scarcely any schemes of this description which are not
capable of some alteration and improvement—(Hear,
hear)—and I think it is not dealing fairly with the public
interests if we resolve that no alteration, however desir-
able, shall take place for the better carrying out of the
promoters' projects.—(Agar, hear.) I think it in not just
for this House to say that, because an alteration or an
improvement is made in a Bill in progress through Par-
liament, they shall therefore forfeit all the advantages to
which they would be otherwise entitled. My Lords, I
ave no doubt that similar cases to the present must
• :rise—(llear)—and I only trust that Parliament will
give their full and careful consideration to this matter—
(Hear)--and that' if any course does present itself by
which justice can be done to the parties, and at the
same time to the public, I hope your Lordships will
adopt it.—(Hear.)
Lord BEAUMONT— I am certainly of opinion that
if !your Lordship defer proceeding with this Bill for