The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
Mr. DODSON, the Deputy Speaker, took the chair at
twelve o'clock.

SECOND READINGS.

The following bills were read a second time :—Kingston
and Epsom Railway, Talacre Pier and Harbour (Railway).

ABERDARE (NORTHERN) RAILWAY BILL.
The second reading of this bill was postponed till the
24th of April.

LANCASTER, RYE, AND NEW WINDSOR ELEC-

TIONS.

Mr. WALPOLE, Chairman of the General Committee
of Elections, reported the appointment of select committees
to try the petitions complaining of undue returns for Lan-
caster, Eye, and New Windsor.
PETITION.

Mr. FEIMAND gave notice that to-morrow, on the
order of the day for going into Committee of Supply, he
should call the attention of the house to a petition that was
presented on Thursday.
PUBLIC COMPANIES' BILL.

Mr. D. GRIFFITH, in moving the second reading of this
bill, explained that the measure was practically the same as
ono which had passed through several stages in a former
session, and had been amended and reduced to the simplest
form in committee. In these circumstances, had there not
been a large amount of pew members in the present Parlia-
ment, ho would have moved its second reading without
adding a single observation. The object of the bill was
the regulation of voting in large public companies.
It was a simple proposal to extend their powers so as to
enable them to know what they were voting about. (A
laugh). lts operation was restricted to those companies
which were under the Companies Consolidation Act of the
year 1815, under which there were two ways of vcting--
personally and by proxy. Those companies consisted of
such an enormous amount of individuals—five, ten, and
fifteen thousand, and in the case of the London and North
Western Railway, 22,000 shoreholders—that all could not
attend their meetings. In not a few cases ladies were
shareholders, and also large manufacturers and others in
various parts of the country, who invested their surplus
money in them, and could not be expected to be present.
Consequently, if such persons voted at all they had to do so
by7proxy, and their votes might be given in favour of an
object which, if they had heard the statements made in the
course of the discussion, they would not have voted for.
The system was, therefore, liable to great abuse by persons
gathering in proxies with which to carry any scheme which
they might have in view. The hon. gentleman gave some
instances of directors of railway companies holding proxies
forsuchalarge amount of stock that they were able to carry
any measure, notwithstanding the opposition of the share-
holders present. To remedy this voting :in anticipation
he proposed that in the event of a poll being demanded the
motion and amendment should be circulated among the
shareholders, and their opinions ascertained by means of
voting papers to be forwarded by post.
Mr. GIBSON said he would make no objection to the
bill, as its principle was salutary, and as it was an im-
provement on the existing law with regard to proxies ;
but ho supposed that the hon. gentleman intended that
all the existing powers with regard to the proxies should
remain untouched, and that this proposal was an addition
to, and not a substitution for, the present law.

Mr. GRIFFITH—Quite so.
The bill was then read a second time.
HOP TRADE BILL.

A large number of petitions having been presented in
favour of this measure,
Mr. HUDDLEST ON moved the second reading, and, in
doing so, stated that there was no new principle involved
in it. The clauses had all been drawn up with a view of
carrying out the intentions of the Legislature in repeated
acts of Parliament, and the only variations were such as it
was necessary to make in order to adapt the measure to the
exigencies of the present day. Tho frauds which it was
sought to prevent were the substitution and sale of an in-
ferior quality of hops for a superior quality, and the system
of false packing—filling up a bag with an inferior quality
of hops, while a small quantity of a good quality was put
in the centre, from which the sample was generally drawn.
These practices had existed for a very considerable time,
and it was, found almost impossible to repress thom. The
temptation was very great, and it arose from the different
prices which the different qualities of hops would fetch in
the market. The superior character of hops grown in East
Kent in favourable soil, where there has been a great ex-
penditure of capital, where the crop was very scanty, were
used only for brewing. Some of the very best kinds for ale
fetched a price of something like eight or nine guineas per
cwt., while the inferior qualities requiring less expenditure
of capital and less care, would bring only four or five
guineas. The house would, therefore, see that there was a
great temptation if there was a facility offered for impos-
ing upon the consumer and the public an inferior for a
superior quality. The Legislature had thought it right to
protect the trade from frauds, and he might state that; five
Acts had been passed with that view. The first of these
measures was introduced in 1710, and one of them had
been repealed. The principal object of the present bill
was to require that the owner, planter, or dealer should
mark the name, weight, year, and place of growth on his
bagi instead of the excise, and there could be no hardship
in his being compelled to do so, for he had the materials
for marking at his hand. There were also clauses render-
ing liable to a penalty persons who should fraudulently
pack, or suffer to be packed, hops of different qualities in
the same bag, and giving power to justices of the peace to
issue a warrant for the detention of bags improperly
marked, while a prosecution was instituted. He had re-
ceived a suggestion as to the wording of some of the
clauses, which might be attended to in committee.
Sir B. BRYDGES seconded the motion.

Mr. BERESF ORD HOPE objected to the bill as it did
not allow a fair competition to growers, but granted a sort of
monopoly to those in East Kent. Ho moved that it be
read a second time that day six months. The hon. gen-
tleman pointed out some objectionable words in the bill
and hoped, if the bill went into committee, they would be
withdrawn.
Sir 31. RIDLEY seconded tho amendment.

Mr. LOCKE said the objection raised against the bill
was the old objection that the growers of bad hops would
not be entitled to sell them as good hops. The measure
was practically a revival of an old system, which had fallen
into desuetude. What objection could the Weald of Kent
have to put on au honest mark. (Hear, hear.) Under the
old acts the grower was obliged to put on a mark, but if
he did not do it he could not be punished except in a very
roundabout way, namely, by actions for penalty.
Mr. GREENE was in favour of the bill as it would be a
protection to brewers.
Mr. Alderman LUSK did not see why there should be
special legislation for the hop any more than any other
trade.

After some observations from Mr. KNIGHT, Mr. Pim, and
other members,

Mr. GIBSON thought the compulsory marking of any
merchandise unadvisable, and said that recent legislation
did not go in that direction, but he could not object to a
measure for the prevention of fraud. He should not oppose
the second reading of the bill, tho clauses of which could
be very fairly discussed in committee.

Mr. HOPE then withdrew his amendment, and the bill
was read a second time.

BANK NOTES (IRELAND) BILL).
Sir C. O'LOGHLEN moved the second reading of this
bill, the object of which was to make Bank of England notes
a legal tender in Ireland, and to remove certain restrictions
which at present existed with respect to Irish banks of
issue. The hon. baronet at some length compared the
English, Scotch, and Irish banking systems, and remarked
that while in Scotland notes were made payable to the head
office in Edinburgh, in Ireland, if a branch office were
opened, that branch office could only issue its own notes.
The consequence was that in Ireland, whore there were six
banks of issue, there were only 191 b:...tneh banks, while
in Scotland, with twelve banks of issue, there were 594
branch banks. Another result was this ; banks being
compelled to keep a fifth more of gold than the amount
issued in notes, every branch bank in Ireland which
issued £lOO,OOO in notes had to keep in stock £120,000 in
gold. In Scotland, however, branch banks had only to
keep in stock an amount equivalent to the amount of notes
issued by that office. In conclusion, the hon. member ex-
pressed his willingness to postpone the bill for a month or
six weeks, if further consideration of the subject was re-
quired.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
carefully considered the provisions of the bill, and if it
had been in the power of the Government, consistent with
their public duty, to have consented to its second reading
they should have dine so. But they had arrived, unhap-
pily, at a different conclusion. His hon. friend had stated
that he was willing to enter into an engagement to drop
the first portion of the bill in committee, and confine
himself to the second object of it if he were assured
of the consent of the Government. It would be
a very objectionable proceeding were the Government to
consent to the second reading of the bill, with a view of
casting out of it in committee that which, on account of
its magnitude, might be called the main principle of
the bill, namely, making the Bank of England notes a
legal tender in Ireland. He could not consent either to
the first or second portions of the bill. With regard to
making the Bank of England notes a legal tender in Ire-
land, his hon. friend, in his speech, had cut the ground
from under his own feet, for he said that when Irish stock
was sold in London and Bank of England stock was re-
ceived in payment, the disposer of the stock, when be re-
turned to Ireland, had to submit to a rate of discount in
changing the notes. That showed that the Bank of
England was not always at par in Ireland. He (Mr. Glad-
stone) would not attempt to disguise the fact that the
banking question with regard to Ireland, and also with re-
gard to other portions of the kingdom, required revision,
but it was not a question that could be approached at all
times with advantage. This was a strictly Imperial ques-
tion. It was quite true that they had three d iffertho
n
laws in operation, and ho was very far from saying that
laws ought not to be made uniform in the three kingdoms.t.is__
That was not his meaning, but his meaning was
h
that they could not settle the law of any one of the three
m cvaidorixig what Ng) afoot TfOlllCl P

on the state of the law in each of the other two ; and that
was the ground on which he stood when he said that any
proposal with regard to the currency in Ireland must be
considered not only with regard to its effect there, but also
with regard to its effect on Scotland and England. After
giving a careful and concise review of the banking system,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that although the
Government were waiting as anxiously as the hon.
member himself for the hour when sonic revision of the
system might be made, they could not consent to the
second reading of the bill.
Some observations having been made by Mr: HANKEY,
who spoke against the measure,
Sir C. O'LOGLILEN said that after the remarks :uncle by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would not proceed
with the bill.
The house then adjourned.