The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-22 00:00:00

Cockatoo

Q :cell Bess
Blight

Won by a length.
NURSERY PLATE.

Maggie Lauder..

Conductor

Ten ran.

LATEST BETTING.
GOODWOOD STAKES.
7tl 1 aggt It =ati (takers)

1
3

PERI-AL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMIVIONS—(This Day.)
The SPEAKER took th.e cba;r at twelve o'clock,
CLARE (COUNTY) ELECTION-.
The SPEA KER announced that the petition agains
the return for Clare County had been withdrawn.
IPSWICH ELECTION COMMITTEE.

The Commit:ee appointed to try the vakdity of the
return fur the borough of Ipswich was sworn at the table
of the hon.e. The Committee were direct!d to sit to-
morrow M eleven o'clock.
WEYMOUTH.

The committee, appointed to try the validity of the re-
turn for the borough of Weymouth, decided on the
first pe,.i i m, that the sitting member.; were duly elected.
The second petition wa; withdrawn. Bribery was
but without the cognisance of the sitting members or
th# r agents.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (CAPITAL)

BILL.

On the consideration of till L-prde' Amendments to
this bill, which was introduced in reference to the Red
path frauds,
Mr. SPOONER objected to the Lords' Amendments
which woul l put the preference shareholders on an equa-
lity with ordinary shareholders, and completely abrogate
the title under which the preference shareholders hel
shares. The preference shareholderi had a right to be
paid 5 p=r cent. per annum out of tbs profits before any
other dividends were peid, but if the Lord,' Amend-

merits wera agreed to, the 260,00 C/. Redpatli's frauds
woul Ibe paid first. The preference s'aareholders would
by these amendments only receive this year ha'f a year
instead of a year's dividend, having to take their chance
with the ordinary shareholders i what remained for the
payment of a dividend. The Igislation now proposed
woull shake the confidence of the public in preference
stock. He moved the omission of the L)rde' amend-
ments.

Mr. A. TURNER seconded the motion. He consi-
dered a great principle of conotnerobil honour was in
volved in this question. Engla,.(l%; commercial honour
had hitherto stood very high, and he call id on the house
to be cautious bow they adopted such repudiatoiy prin.
ciptei as those involved in the amendments under consi-
dorati
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that ttm pint involved was
a very men and important one. It ought to be decided
by a court of 14w. He should, however, support the
motion.

Mr. BAILLIE, chairman of the committee before
whom the prefereccs shareholders' claims were sent,
said that the question before the committee was confined
to the payment of the current half-year's dividetsi, and
they reported that the preference shareholders were en-
titled to their guaranteed dividend if a surplus remained
after the payment of the Redpath fraud. The ease had
been somewhat altered since the comrnitee reported,
because the directors had now a second half-year's divi•
deed in hand. The effect of the lord,' amendments was
to give the preference shareholders a dividend, if any re
rnained after the payment of the Redpeth frauds -ut of
he profits of the year. In that respect they would be
placed on an equahty with the ordinary shareholders.
After some remarks from Mr. -...nEADLAM, Mr. J.
EWART, and Mr. W. BROWN,
Mr. J. DENISON (chairman of the Great Northern
Railway) said that the question was ,investigated by a
committee of the Heti e of Commons, and also by a co,n-
reittee of the Koine of Lords, before whom the preference
~harthelders appeared by counstl, and after full conside
ration the Lords confirmed the dec ran of the Commons.
The amendments olicted to were introduced by the
House of Lords a ith a view cf equitably settling the
question and to prevent litigation. The directors at first
proposed to capitalise the Redpath fraud, and throw the
loss over a series of years, but. L )rd Redesdale, the
chairman of the Howe of Lords' Committees, insisted
on the frauds being paid'out of revenue. There was a
great difference between preference and guaranteed
stock. The meaning of the forever was,
that if there was a profit they should
after the payment of the expenses of the line be first
paid their dividend out of the surplus earnings of the
line. The legal points at issue between the directors
and the preference shareholders was whether the latter,
having only received part of their usual dividend in
1856, in e msequence of these frauds, were entitled to
claim the payment of the difference out of the earnings
of 1857. If they bad that power, preference share-
holders would be, in fact, g,uarauteedsbareloolders. It was
with the view of settling the question, awl to prevent
litigation, as he bad already said, the Lords' amend-
ments bad been introduced into the bit. No dividend
could be paid until the question was settled.
Mr. LOWE said that the house was not bound
by the decision of either of the committees, and that. it
was competent for the house to reconsider the question.
It appeared to him that the committees cernreitted an
error in entering into the question of what was Cr was
not the rights of the preferend and ordinary share-
hol lers. (Hear, hear.) The question ought not to have
been decided by the committees, but by a court of law.
(Hear, hear.) By disagreeing with the Lerds amend-
ments the house would leave the question in that posi-
tion without preluding the rights of either class of
shareholders. (Elear, hear.)
Mr. FITZROY differed from the hon. member for
.Kidderminster in reference to the powers of the coin-
mittees relative to this question, and he said that the
preference shareholders cent before the cerninittees un-
der the knowledge that they were to be treated in the
manner proposed by the Lords amendments.
After a few words from Mr. BRISCOE, and Mr. P.
W. MARTIN,
The Lords amendments were negatived without a
division, Mr. E. DENISON, chairman of the Great
Northern Railway, declining to go to a division on
the motion, the feeling of the, house being against the
adoption of the Lords amendments.
PUBLIC CHARITIES BILL.
Mr. HARDCASTLE moved the second reading
of this bill, the object of which was to diminish
the expense consequent upon the change of trus-
tees of public charities to which buds had been be-
queathed, and to enable such trustees to form them-
selves into corporations. The report of the Caarity
Commission showed that the public charities possessed
444 000 acres of land, produsirg a rental of between
800,0001. and 900,0001. at the date of the commission,
and at the present time to upwards of 1,000,0001. per
annum. The average rental of all the charities in the
country was about 401., but there were many hundreds
whose rental did not amount to 401., and the results
were twofold. In some cases the charity was put to
great loss by the appoinment of new trustees, from its re-
quiring a deed for the purpose which did not
cost less, one way and another, than 101 Another re-
sult which often acted disastrously was the irregular
appointment of new trustees, or not at all, and the won-
sequence was that sooner or later the charity lapsed. He
proposed to get rid of the existing evil, by the appoint-
ment of a registrar-general of public accounts, with an
office in London attached to that of the Registrar-
General of Births, Marriages, and Deaths. The majority
of the existing board it was proposed should have the
option of taking up their deeds and depositing them
with the registrar-general upon the payment of a small
fee, not exceeding 31., and by this payment the charity
would become registered, and would secure the appoint-
ment of a succession of trustees as might be necessary
from 'deaths or removals. The fees it was thought
would be sufficient to make the new office self-support-
ing. The hon. member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley)
had expressed an opinion that he considered that in the
establishment of HO many petty corporations individual
responsibility of the trustees would be destroyed. He
acknowledged that, as the bill at present stood, it was
open to that objection,
but he thought it might be reme-
died in committee. lie hoped the house would agree to
the second reading of the bill.
Sir J. TROLLOPE objected to the bill, on the
ground that it ignored the existence of the Commission-
ers of Charity—that it ,was a taxing bill, and that the
expenses.l of the Court of Chancery were not so heavy
as to warrant the machinery proposed by this bill. He
moved its second reading this day six months.
Mr. MASSEY said that he thought the objection of
the right boo, gentleman the member far Oxfordshire
(Mr. Henley) was a valid objection to the bill. He did
think that the bill would reduce the expenses connected
with these corporations, and therefore he could not con-
sent to its second reading. There was a bill now before
a committee of the House of Lords relative to filling up
vacancies in the management of trusts, and it was only
reascnahle that they should wait the result of that mea-
sure before considering another proposition on the sub-
ject.
The second reading of the bill was negatived without
a division.

MARRIED WOMEN BILL.
Sir E. PERRY withdrew the second reading of this
bill in consequence of the absence of learned member-,
whose presence was necessary for a full legal dis-
cussion of the merits of the bill. Ile therefore moved
that it be referred to a select committee. As the
hou e, it was sail, would not rise before the 20th of
August, he thought the committee would have an op-
portunity of meeting several times before that time, and
consider the provisions of the bill.
The motion was agreed to.
TENANT RIGHT (IRELAND) BILL.

On the motion for the second readinlof this bill,
Mr. MAGUIRE presented a number of petitions