The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 11.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the
Woolsack shortly before Five o'clock.
Lord PORTAIIN presented a petition from some
place in Somersetshire, praying for an enactment to
prevent denunciations rom the altar in Ireland.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH presented a
petition from some place in Devonshire against
Jewish emancipation.
The Earl of EGLINTON presented a petition
from the magistrates of Ayr with a similar prayer.
Lord HATHERTON presented a petition from
Stafford, praying that Odd Fellows' societies might be
placed,on the same footing as other benefit societies.
GAME- L kW S.
The NOBLE LORD then presented a petition from a
meeting of tenant farmers held in Edinburgh, praying
for an alteration in the game-laws. He thought that
some alteration ought to take place. He thought that
hares ought not to be considered as game. They
were most destructive, and every farmer ought to have
the liberty of destroying them on his own estate.
The greater number of convictions for poaching were
for snaring hares. Hares should be placed upon the
same footing as rabbits. He also thought that some
important modifications ought to take place in
the duty payable for a license to shoot, and
that a person ought to be enabled to shoot
on his own ground on paying a much less
amount of duty than at present. So long as
the qualification for shooting consisted in the pos-
session of 100 acres of land, there was no great
objection to calling upon him to pay 41. for his
license, but when they did away with the qua-
lification they should have lowered the duty on the
license. He thought that every man should have the
power of killing game upon the land he occupied, and
that the license should be either done away with al-
together, or the duty should be so reduced as to
place the obtaining of a license within the power of
any man who occupied land.
The Marquis of SALISBURY though that since
the alteration in the law was made authorising the
sale of game, the game was as much private pro-
perty as the trees on the farm ; and tenants, when
they made their bargains with their landlords, were
fully aware that game was to be preserved, and made
their agreements accordingly.
Lord ASHBURTON thought that it would be
almost a perfect remedy for the evils complained of
as regarded the present game-laws, if the Legislature
were to pass a measure disgaming hares, and placing
them in the same category as rabbits.
LordPORTMAN thought it desirable that this dis-
cussion should have taken place before the budget was
brought forward, in order that the finance Minister
' might consider the propriety of lowering the duties on
game certificates. He knew that the present high
rate of duty prevented many farmers from taking out
game certificates.

JEWISH EMANCIPATION.
The Earl of HARROWBY presented several peti-
tions against Jewish emancipation.
HEALTH OF TOWNS.
The NOBLE EARL also presented a petition from
Stafford in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.
ORDNANCE SURVEY.
The Earl of ABERDEEN presented a petition
from some place in Scotland, complaining of the
small progress made in the Ordnance Survey in
Scotland.
The Duke of MONTROSE trusted that the Go-
vernment would adopt measures to remedy the evil
complained of. If the survey progressed at its pr. sent
rate it would take 35 years to complete it in Scotland.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE defended the
conduct of the Ordnance officials engaged in the
survey.
The NOBLE MARQUIS then laid upon the table
copies of certain communications which had taken
place with the Austrian Government.
RAILWAY COMPANIES' AUDIT BILL.
Lord MONTEAGLE moved the second reading
of the Railway Companies' Audit Bill, and is doing
so he wished at the outset to guard himself against
the imputation that this measure was proposed in any
spirit of hostility to railways. Some persons con-
tended that the Legislature should not interfere with
railways, but he contended that railway companies
should be watched with great jealousy by the Legis-
lature. It was said that railways were private pro-
perty, and the Legislature had no right to interfere
with them. Why; these companies owed their exist-
ence to an interference with the rights of private
property—the right of private property in land—
authorised by the Legislature for the public good ;
aid therefore the Legislature had the fullest right to
watch and regulate the movements of railway directors.
It was necessary the Legislature should exercise this
right for the protection of shareholders. Since 1826,
a sum of upwards of 324,000,000/. had been placed
at the disposal of railway directors and proprietors,
and this fact alone was sufficient to authorise the in-
terference of the Legislature to see how it was applied
The sum placed at the disposal of railway companies
during the years 1844 and 1i146, was more than
double the amount of that required for the army,
the navy, and the whole administration of the
United Kingdom. They had, besides, had power
given them to enter the money market and
to raise upwards of one hundred millions
on loan. Parliament ought to take care this power
should rest upon a just foundation, and that persons
lending should know exactly the security upon which
they lent their money. This borrowing, power
rested upon foundations totally different
to any other borrowing power in the
kingdom. They had an inducement to borrow
at a high rate of interest, which no other
body possessed, in order to complete their works, and
the exercise of this power had contributed greatly to
I produce the late derangement of the money market.
The Bank of England had recently held a large amount
of these securities, and had been unable consequently
to make advances upon the security of the floating
debt of the country. Was this security what it pre-
tended to be ? That was a matter for grave consider-
ation. He had shown that Parliament possessed a
right and authority to interfere with these rail-
ways if it should be expedient for the pub-
lic good to do so ; but that question was not
raised by his Bill, which merely gave to share-
holders the power of insisting upon a strict audit
of the accounts of the directors. At present the au-
ditors were so intimately connected with the directors,
that the audit was, in fact, a met e matter of form, the
real auditors being the directors themselves. Now
he wanted to give the shareholders the power of
establishing a real and efficient audit of the accounts,
perfectly independent of the board of directors. He
did not propose to give the new auditor power of
disallowing items, but to give him the power of un-
limited access to all the accounts, and the power
of reporting thereon to the shareholders his opinion. In
many cases a dividend might be made out of calls, so that
a dividend of five per cent. might be declared when
really the profits only authorised the declaration of a
dividend of two and a half per cent., and thus
only a mystification of accounts, an illusory
security, might be created, upon which
illusory security money would be raised.
and that which was in fact a debt due by the com-
pany, might be represented as the property of the
company. Now, if there were an independent system
of audit established, this state of things could not
exist, and the necessity for the establishment of some
independent audit was becoming every day more and
more manifest. He hoped that in all future Railroad
Bills, before the second reading of such Bills was con-
sented to their Lordships would insist upon a com-
plete audit of the accounts being laid before the Com-
mittee. He did not propose that the person so appointed
should have any power of imposing any penalty or
punishment; all he asked was that ho should have good
access to all documents, and full power of making the
investigation, that he might state his opinion frankly,
transmit it to the Railway Department, that it might be a
public document open to reference by that and the other
House of Parliament. Railway companies had two
separate modes of obtaining money to make a dividend;
one, out of actual profits, the other, out of their capital.
This occurred when a line was only partly completed, or
when being complete from terminus to terminus, it
got a Bill to extend itself by branches. The whole
position of a company might be altered by increasing
its capital and issuing new shares, and those who lent
it money had a security very different from the real
One; this was made possible by a mystification of the
accounts, and the mixing up two sources of property
which ought always to be kept separate. Suppose the
capitalde of a railroad was 100,000/., and it paid a divi-
wtotitthbapto
o,nfisoof, 5 per cent., or 5,000/.; supposing its profits fell
trnylsleaaitiiitecapo.uld only give 3,0001 as a dividend, yet
the greaterr tdcoiovcnia;idt socfapital to its aid, or of transferring
tal some of the expenses of the railroad,
wWbhoe
administered
5,0001. could still be sustained.
these
the enormous temptation those
House would see that some fundsllnee rem e
dwye
oughtre
to be to,
provided.the
Upon these grounds rested the the measure he had
brought before the House.
ob-
jected that it did not go far enough, knew
idt
Imhight.
.he
his own view, he should have it more stringent
gre
net
;lobl followed
his
had thought it bettor to try the Bill in
tehrethpeowcoenr:iidfenreactelosasaoti.3tyePoseafnririaisnleipni
reservinegettotighaiimnsuenitd.
"tchh(3esußligill would give to a certain number of shareholders
(he bad not fixed the precise number) a power, not of
vexatiously prying into the concerns of the company,
but of protecting the minority. It had been suggested
that when a Bill for any railroad, or amalgamation Bill,
or branch Bill, came before their Lordships, they
should require
shouldthatquirebe an
before
auditthe
u secondfthereaacdcionugnotaf the
Bill there
an independent auditor. He was very far from
saying it might not bo necessary to resort to that
course ; but such a measure, however good in itself,
would not meet the object of his Bill, because many
of the railroad companies which might be proper ob-
jects of his Bill might not come before their Lordships
at all. With respect to the provisions of the Bill
(which had very few clauses), he proposed that a ba-
lance-sheet of the company should be submitted to the
railway commissioners, who would be empowered to ap-
point an auditor, to report upon it, the report to be in