The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PAR LIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTBB.DAY.)
The STRAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
CLARE (COUNTY) ELECTION.
The SPEA KER announced that the petition against
the return for Clare County bad been withdrawn.
IPSWICH ELECTION COMMITTEE.
The Committee appointed to try the validity of the
return for the borough of Ipswich was sworn at the table
of the house. The Conernittee were directed to sit to-
morrow at eleven o'clocEYk.
WMOUTH.

The committee appointed to try the validity of the re-
turn for the borough of Weymouth, decided on the
first petition, that the sitting member., were duly elected.
The second petition was withdrawn. Bribery was proved,
but without the cognisance of the sitting members or
their agents.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (CAPITAL)
BILL.

On the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to
this bill, which was introduced in reference to the Red.
path frauds,
Mr. SPOONER objected to the Lords' Amendments
which would put the preference shareholders on an equa-
lity with ordinary shareholders, and completely abragate
the title under wbich the preference shareholders held
shares. The preference shareholders had a right to be
paid 5 per cent. per annum out of the profits before any
other dividends were paid, but if the Lords' Amend-
ments were agreed to, the 260,0001. Redpath's frauds
woull be paid first. The preference shareholders would
by these amendments only receive this year half a year
instead of a year's dividend, having to take their chance
with the ordinary shareholders in what remained for the
payment of a dividend. Toe legislation now proposed
woold shake the confidence of the public in preference
stock. lie moved the omission of the Lords' amend-

ments.
Mr. A. TIIR,NER seconded the motion. He consi-
dered a great principle of commercial honour was in-
♦olved in this question. England's commercial honour
had hitherto stood very high, and he called on the house
to be cautious how they adopted such repudiatory prin-
cip‘ei as those involved in the amendments under consi-
deration.

Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the point involved was
a •ery Mee and important one. It ought to be decided
by a court of law. He should, however, support the
motion. _ _

Mr. BAILLIE, chairman of the committee before
whom the preference shareholders' claims were sent,
Raid that the question before the committee was confined
to the payment of the current hall-year's dividend, 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 case had
been somewhat altered since the commitee reported,
because the directors bed now a second half-year's divi•
dend in hand. The effect of the lords' amendments was
to give the preference shareholders a dividend, if any rat
mained after the payment of the Redpath frauds out n
the profits of the year. In that resp?et they would be
placed on an equality with the ordinary shareholders.
A fter some remarks from Mr. lIRADLAM, Mr. J.
EWART, and Mr. W. BROWN,
Mr. E DENISON (chairman of the Great Northern
Railway) said that the question was investigated by a
committee of the Hou-e of Commons, and also by a com-
mittee of the House of Lords, before whom the preference
shareholders appeared by counsil, and after full conside
ration the Lords confirmed the deceiion of the Commons.
The amendments objected to were introduced by the
House of Lord's with a view of equitably settling the
question and to prevent litigation. The directors at fir-t
proposed to capitalise the Redpath frauds, and throw the
loss over a series of years', but Lerd Redesdale, the
chairman of the House 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 for.ner
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
1156, in consequence of these frauds, were entitled to
claim the payment of the difference out of the earnings
of 1157. If they had ti,iat power, preference share-
holders would be, in faci, guar Infeed shareholders. It was
with the view of settling the question, and to prevent
litigation, as he had already said, the Lords' amend-
ments had been introduced into the bill. 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 committed an
error in entering into the question of what was er was
not the delete of the preference and ordinary share-
hollers. (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 Lards' amend-
ments.the house would leave the question in that posi-
tion without prejudging 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 com-
mittees relative to this question, and he said that the
➢reference shareholders went before the committees un-
der the knowledge that they were to be treated in the
manner proposed by the Lords amendments.
After a few words from Mr. Batscoz, 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 amendment,4.
PUBLIC CrIARITIES BILL.

Mr. HARDCASTLE moved the second reading
of this bid, the object of which was to diminish
the expense consequent upon the change of trus-
tees of public charities to which lands had been be-
queathed, and to enable such trustees to form them-
selves into corporations. The report of the Charity
Commission showed that the public charities possezeied
444 000 acres of land, prodaing a rental of between
100,0001. and 900,0001. at the date of the commission,
and at the present time to upwards of 1,000,0001. pr
annum. The average rental of all the charities in the
country was a'eout 401., but there were many hundred.'
whose rental did not amount to 405., and the results
were twofold. In some cases the charity was put to
great loss by the appointment of new trustees, from its rte.
quiring a deed for the purpose which did not
cost less, one way and another, than 10/ Another re-
sult which often acted disastrously was the irregular
appointment of new trustees, or not at all, and the c in.
sequence was that sooner or later the charity lapsed. Ho
proposed to get rid of the existing evils 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 mejerity
of the existing boar,' it was proposed should have the
option of taking up their deeds and depositing them
with the registrar-general upon the payment of a smal,
fee, not txceeding 31, and by this payment the charity
would become registered, and would secure the apeoint-
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-soppere.
ling. The hon. rnemher for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley)
bad expressed an opinion that. be considered that in the
establishment of so many petty corporations individual
responetbility of the trustees would be destroyed. Ho
acknowledged that, as the bill at present stood, it was
open to that objection, but he thought it might be reme-
died in committee. He hoped the house would agree to
the second reading of the bill.
Sir J. TROLLOPE objected to the bill, on the
grcund that it ignored the existence of the Commission-
ers' of Charity—that it was a taxing bid, and that the
eaepensee 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
not think the bill would reitice the expenses connected
with these corporations, and therefore be could not cell-
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
reasonable that they should wait the result of that mea-
sere before considering another proposition on the sub-
feet..

The selond 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 di.-
eussion of the merits of the bill. He therefore moved
that it be referred to a select committee. As the
house, it was said, would not rise before the 20th of
August, be thought the committee would have an op-
portunity of meeting several times before that time, and
considering the provisions of the bill.
The motion was agreed to.
m:TENANT RIGHT (IRELAND) BILL.
the motion for the second reading of this bill,
,froZrowees• •MA.CtirnUITRIE presented a number of petitions
an Liebman, re and, which the hon. member, though
founda difficulty in pronouncing, in favour
of the bill, and
gentleman
woo
ewards moved, in c-m-equence of the
introducedu the bill no 1 tiger being
ahmm.ember of the
be read
the.: the order fir its
second reading should
of
the
and discharged. Ike
urged the importanceenacme
amicably
setstulehject, which he consi
present state odf by
dered could only
the Government
taking, it up. The
the law relative to
prrmivyedi the Governme
landlord and tenant in Ireland de
in cases
number
airier-
ses
of the means of recruiting the a
favourber of
gency from its causing emigration,
petitions that had' been presented to thehouseliT
of such a measure, showed the feeling of the
Ireland on the subject, and he asked the people of
to take it under their serious consideration. rime"
Mr. BAG WELL also urged on the Government the
.necessity of their legislating on the sulject in the cour,e
of next session, He stated that from 1851 to 1857, a
period of undoubted prosperity, the population of Ire.
land had 'decreased, principally by. emigration, 754,334.
The O'DONOGIIDE expressed a hope that Govern.
went would state their intentions with reference to the
Subject.

Mr. BATCHELL expressed a simihr opinion. He
believeo the bill of the hon. gentleman the late member
for Mayo, gave general satisfaction to the people of
Ireland. The Irish members were almost unanimous
in its favour. There Was no divirion in the Irish party
re
" tonen. ure.' and " compensation," therefore
t
he hoveped.theo h gisntlemen would not re,ist the appeal
of Ireland, but introduce a measure on this subject next
session.

me.;GREED considered the Government hint ~c.