The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-12 00:00:00

DIVER/AL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Mardi 11.
Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock.
ILLNESS OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he bed
ree eked a le:eur from the Lord Chancellor, stating that
he was too unwell to attend this evening; and ho there-
fore moved that Lord Portman do take his scat on the
wools2ek as Deputy Speaks r.
Lard BROUGHAM was happy to say tbathe had
heard from tho Lord Chancellor that his ailment was of
a mere trifling nature, and that there was nothing alarm-
ing- in it.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that the Deputy
Speaker, the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Campbell), was
absent on circuit, and he therefore moved that in the
absence of the Lord Chancellor, of Lord Denman, of
Lord Campbell, and of the Earl of Shaftesbury, the
Woo!balk be taken by Lord Portrette.—A greed to.
PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
Messengers from the Commons states that the Com-
moos had agreed to their Lordships' amendments in the
Party Precessions (Ireland) Bill.
SIR THOMAS TURTON'S DEFALCATIONS.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Mr.
Brodie, the manager of the Bank of Scotland at Ste -
ling, complaining of losses incurred through the riefilca-
tions of Sir Thomas *Luton, by a person for whom the
petEtioner was trustee, which funds he had been com-
pelled by law to place in Sir Thomas Turton's hands by
Got eminent, the defaulter having been appointed by the
judges of India, who were appointed by the Crown.
He thought the petitidners had a fur claim on the Go-
vernment for compensation, and he recommended their
case to the consideration of the Government.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE admitted the hard-
ship of the case.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought it was worth
while to inquire whether or not the judges who made the
appointment were required by law to tike security.
Lord BROUGHAM bad no doubt but they were by
law required to take security.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—Aro they liable to
make good the deficiencies?—(A laugh.)
PEERS' OATHS.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the
Earl of Clancarty and another Noble Peer, complaining
that they could not take their seats in their Lordships'
House, because they could not swear that, since the
Act lately passed for regulating charitable trusts,
no foreign prince did exercise authority within
these realms, although they were willing to swear
that no foreign potentate had any right to exercise
authority in these realms.. They prayed that a law
might be passed altering the law, for it was contrary to
the law of the land for any one branch of the Legislature
to take upon itself to alter the oaths vviteout the
consent of the other two branches. Suppose a Jew were
to be elected to the other Home of Legislature, the
House of Commons could not pass a resolution enabling
a Jew to sit there. If that were law there would have
been no necessity to pass the Act of Catholic Eman-
cipation, because a resolution of the House
of Commons would have admitted them.
He had heard a report within the last few
hours, to which he did not attach credit., that au
attempt would be made to admit a Jew to Parliament by
a resolution of the House of Commosar. He regrettei
that the House of Lords should have kept Jews out
if Parliament, but the front dour of Parliament having
been closed against them, it was perfectly unconstitu-
tional to attempt to admit them by the back door, by
way of resolution.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHELL thought it would he
advisable that the oath should be altered.
Lord REDESDALE had as tender a conscience as
any man' but he did not put the same interpretation on
the oath as the petitioners, and therefore he took the
oath.
After a few words from the Earl of LO.NDEF.
BOROUGH the subject dropped.
PETITIONS.

The Earl of MALMESBURY presented a petition
against any Post-effice delivery on Sunday. lie found
that the petitioners did not understand the subject, for
he was convinced that if the Governmeat were to ac-
cord their requis.t great inconvenience would be the
consi quenco to persons residing in the provinces.
Lord REDESDALE presented several petitions com-
plaining of agricultural distress.
The Earl of POWIS presented a retitle's from several
of the clergy against the consolidation of the Episcopal
and Common Fund.
The Earl ( f ST. GERMANS presented two petitions
against the guuday Trading Btu.
RAILWAY AUDIT BILL.
The Earl of GRANVILLE moved the second reading
of the Railway Audit Bill. The former Audit Bill had
been so violently opposed in the House of Commons that
the Government had bees obliged to give it up, although
some of those who most violently opposed it were in fa-
vour of a Government audit. In the following session
the Railway Audit Bill of the Noble Lord (Munteagle)
was passed unanimously by their Lordships, but it etas
not carried through the Commons in con-
sequence of the opposition of the railway in-
tersst. In the following session their Lordships had
appointed a Select Committee on the subject, before
which it had be, n stated by persons connected with
railway companies that railway audits as at present con-
ducted wero mere moonshine. A Bill founded on the
report passed their Lordships' House, bat was withdrawn
from the House of Comaaons because it would be iaapossible
ti pass it in the face of the detertuieed opposi ion of the
railway directors, without adding a month to the length
of the session. Some time since a Bill had been pre-
pared by the North-Western proprietors, which they
found they could not sanction, and therefore he had
introduced the present Bill as a Government measure.
He had this day Ind an ioterview with a deputation
rn this subject, but he felt bound, in justice to that
House, in justice to the Noble Lerd, in
.justice to the
public ,;ti justice to railway shareholders themselves, to
persevere with his Bill, the object of which was to secure
a just, a true, and an independent audit of railway ac-
counts. The great objection made to other Railway Audit
Bills had been that they tended to increase the patronage
f the Government. No such objection could be made to
the present Bill, end he hoped that that circumstance
would facilitate its passego through the House of Com•
mons. He had already explained the provisions of that
Bill, and he hoped their Lordships would consent to the
second reading.
Lord S rANLEY ought perhaps to apologise to their
Lordships for addressing them, as ho had no prac-
tical knowledge on the subject, as he had never
possessed a railway share. But he had that
morning had the honour of receiving a deputation from
the railway companies, representing a paid-up
capital of 119,000,000/. Had they proposed to resist
an audit he would have been the last to have assisted
them, but within the last three or four days the delegates
of the companies bad prepared a reetsure for securing
an independent audit. The deputation hal stated
several objections to the Government Bill, end he was
agree with him that it
wsuorueldhisbNe obbelettelr',riend would
if possible, to secure the con-
i a whichtothothGosoevebrennmetfintst
of
schemethet; daioffteirenhtew
railwayno companies to the
audit held in his hand
eaO'hij'hß7istlileonregeanntaletimngen froombjecdtecd-
a printed draft of
!eves of these companies,
e s cßill ausre dwer,o
bwvhi
tee
(tih.
to giving ti any' other persons such control
over the railway property of this conatry as the audi-
tors,hy also o
would possesstotei
tunderthe present Bill.
i.. 0
degre3 r
f control
which the Government would Lave ever these auditors.
They objected to the Government having the power of
keeping these auditors in office, notwithstandine
the opposition of the companies ; they also i"ob-
jected to the Government having the power of
tieing the salaries of the auditors and their officers, and
they objected to giving the Government the power
of fixing the quota which each compan—
y should centri-
bubo towards the common audit funtl. He thought the
Bill would create a vast amount Of expense, which
would fall very heavily on ' railway companies at the
present moment, when all of them were eayieg such
small dieidenda, and some none at all ; and he, there-
fore, thought t',ey were justified in objecting to a mea-
sure which ,would cause them so large additional ex-
rease without any adequate compensating advantage.
Ile considered the Bill was too Isere as the danger at
present was not of shareholders trusting too much to
their directors, but rather of their Placing too little
confidence in them. The shareholders, however, slid
not so much object to an audit, as to the power of
auditing their own accounts being taken out of their
own hands. If the _directors do not attend to the re-
commendations of the auditors, the latter ure to have the
power of laying their recommendations before the
shareholders. There were various minor provisions to
discover and prevent abuses. There were also powers
given not connected with the audit. Tho directors
were prohibited from holding proxiesat the expense of
the company, except on certain occasions. That was an
important controuling check, and only one director was
re-eligible at a time. His object was to lay before their
Lordships the objections entertained against the Bill by
the delegates of the railway companies, and if the Noble
Lord pressed the second reading that night he hoped
that he understood that discussion was not precluded at
a future stage of the Bill. Ho hoped his Noble Friend
would not hurry the Committee, and that the case would
receive the deliberate attention of their Lordships. With
that understanding he should not oppose the motion.
Lord MONTEAGLE said that it was admitted on all
hands that the state of railway accounts was such that
it should not be left in its present condition. Better
machinery should be substitute -I for teat
on which they
at present relie I. This was the fourth 3 ear their Lord-
ships were called upon to discuss the question, and they
had seat down Bills to the Commons which had not been
met in a legislative and amending
spirit. Had that been
done, they might have provided the shareholders with
an effective measure. His objection to the measure was
of an opposite character to that of his Noble Friend op.
posits (Lord Stanley). Ho believed that it was a great
misfortune that railway companies bad teen left with-
out' efficient supervision. That was a greater blow to
that interest than any they had yet sustained. It had
eacouraged speculation of every kind, without regard to
check or security of any kind, Nobody trusted railway
accounts, as they were now prepared. There was no eon-
fidence geeerully. No doubt there was confide rice in bo-
dies of directors, but he did not speak of the integrity of
individuals, but of the system of keeping accounts.
Take the Caledonian Railway. They had the greate3t
portion of the capital stock of the company diverted
to purpose; for which it never was intended, and yet
no one could suspect the integrity of Mr. Hope John-
stone. All that was now wished was that the account:
laid before the shareholders should be true and sincere,
that they might rely on their correctness. It was not

ies of
•is in

intended to give Go;ernnWtaPower of internal inter-
ference. There was no such intention in this Bill. He
believed further, that in many instances they could not
depend upon the sharehllders themselves. Their title
n as of an evanesce:3 and transitory nature, and vary

different from the possessors of property. A threat of
a felling dividend would always have great effect, and
the share holders not being a sufficient check, they
wanted the clock t f a public representative and con-
troling poWL,r. There should be one independent eye,
with the power of making a special report. They could
then see whe,her the eceounts bad been " cooked." It
was true what his Noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had raid
in reference to proxies. The use of these proxies often
led to the moat ilegrant of all abuses. In one care that had
come under his twice the directors held 11,000 share.,
which wore " sleeping" with respect to dividend,
but alive in the hands of the directors
for all other purposes. He thought Govern-
moot should appoint one auditor out of the three. The
legal and Parliamentary expenses should not he paid
until taxed. In the Bill ( f last year there was a clause
that no more thsn 50 per cent, of these costs should be
paid until they had been taxed, When they knew that
the legal and Parliamentary expenses of all the railways,
as returned to Parliament, amounted to 10 000,000/,
they would see the necessity of a check. Into those Bills
the most extraordinary' and illegal items bad been it:-
eluded. The expenditure upon illegal purchaies of
shares on oaer liues Lad been presented to shareholders
in the lump, under the head of legal and Parliamentary
expense% How could shereliolders detect these illegal
purchases, under each circumstances ? Ho considei•ed
that the present system of railway audit was nothing
but mere moonshine, end considered that it would be
more beneficial to all the railways in Engla-ad to pay
double the present sum paid by them for an effective and
beneficial audit, than half the present sum for the present
system, where the return was useless and inefficient.
Lord STANLEY said that he did not think that suf-
ficient protection was given to the shareholders by this
Bill, and that he therefore intended that one on a better
principle should be recommended to the notice of the
Committee ere long.
Lord COLCIIESTER did not consider this Bill a
matter that solely interested the shareholder or the di-
rector, but was one of far more permanent importance,
inasmuch as it was a question on the one hand between
Parliament awl the companies, and the other between the
public and the same companies. He considered that it
was the duty of Parliament whenever it granted loans
to any of those companies, to ascertain whether that
money had been dist ursed in the manner specified by the
borrower; and his motive for making that allusion wag.,
because he knew that money borrowed under such pre-
tences by the directors of a certain lino did not expend
the loan of 800,0001. on railways, but in quite a different
manner.

Earl GRANVILLE said that he assured the Noble
Lord, that this Bill would give every satisfaction to
Parliament, the public, the directors, and the share-
holders, for the auditors to be appointed according to
the provisions (1 the Bill would be independent and im-
partial persons.
Lord BEAUMONT said that from what ho under-
stood from the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord Stan-
ley), he inferred that that Noble Lord intended
sending up ancther Bill of a similar nature before
the Committee ; if so, he should hare no objection
to such a proceeding, but he was free to confess
that he saw great difficulties in the Bill before their
Lordships' and apprehended as great from that of the
Noble Lord (Lord Stinky), because he feared that either
Bills would net establish the certainty of a perfect audit,
and particularly because the present Bill gave power to
the delegates of railway companies t) be their own
auditors, which he considered far from being either use-
ful or impartial, for he thought that auditors should be
independent of all companies, and until such was the
case he could have no faith iu the returns of such audi-
tors. He felt assured that if that principle were acted
on, that, it would cause more harm than benefit, and that
it would completely shake public confidence. He would
ask their Lordships wai this Bill intended for the public
or for the shareholders? If the latter he should most
strenuouslj oppose it, for he looked upon the directors
and shareholders as so many trustees who undertake
certain duties for the public interest. He was well aware
how astutely some of those gentleman auditors cooked
up their accounts, for on one line with which ho was
connected ho f aind, after an investigation into the con-
dition of the accounts, that there were no dividends, and
no further capital to be expended.—(Laughter.) On
the whole he considered that this Bill world be of no
use if independent auditors were not appointed under its
provisions.—(Hear, heir.)
Earl GRANVILLE said that his principal objection
to any delay that might be occasioned by sending this
Bill before a Committee was, that a similar Bill last.
session had been totally lost, to the great disadvantage of
the public and shateholders. He should therefore press
to second leading.
The Bill was then read a second time.
RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT BILL.

The House resolved itself into committee on this Bii.
Lord REDESDALE raised some technical objections
to three of the claufes, because he considered that die-
metionary power relative to compensation was most un-
just.

L rd BEAUMONT said that he considered that the
answer given in evidence 'adore the Glninittee on the
Bill ought to be sufficient tor his Lordship (Lord Bde-
dale). He should himkeT move some verbal ameadmeuts
on the third reading.
The Bill then passed through Committee, and the
House then resumed.

Tho ►Marquis cf. LANSDOWNE brought up a report
of the returns of the Poor-law Cumunissionersi and their
Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 11,
Tho SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS.
The following reports were considered and agreed to:--
Architeete, Civil Engineers', Builders', and General Fire
and Life Insurance, Annuity, and Reversionary In-
teri.st Company (Incorporation of the company under
a different name) Bill.
Birkenhead Improvement Bill.
Bristol Waterworks Act Amendment Bill.
Liverpool Cattle Market Bill.
West Bromwich Rates Bill.
PETITIONS.

Mr. GREENE presented a petition praying for the
establishment of county courts.
Mr. PACKE presented a petition praying that the
jurisdiction of county courts might be extended to 50/.
Several petitions were presented against Sunday la-
bour in the Post-office.

Sir THOS. BIRCH presented a petition from Liver-
pool praying that no alteraticn might be made in the
mode of shipping Failora, _

Sir G. YEbIIELL presented a petition praying for the
extension of the county courts jurisdiction.
Mr. GLYN presented two petitions for the estab-
lishment of county financial board;.
Mr. B. DENISON presented two petitions from places
in the West Riding to the same effect.

Admiral GORDON presented petitions from the
county of Aberdeen to the same effect.

Mr. HEIADLAM presented a petition praying for the
ext nsion of the jurisdiction of county courts.
Mr. STANSFIELD presented two petitions praying
for the e-aahlishment of county financial boards.
Mr. W. BROWN presented two petitions from places
in Lancashire, one in favour of the Ten Hours' Bill, and
the crh,r egainFt the rating of small tenements.
Sir J. •WALaSLEY presentei a petition from a
place in Lancashire praying for the amendment of the
Factory Act, so as to prevent the adoption of the relay
system. _

- Sir 'Wbi. CLAY preEentecl a petition from White
Lapel praying fur a bettor supply of water in the inc.

Sir GEORGE CLERK presented a petition egainb
be Marriage Bill.

Mr. CAYLEY presented a petition praying for a re.
duction of the duty on t: s.
Mr. MOODY presented a petition from Somerset.
shire complaining of agricultural distress.
Mr. BANKES presented a petition from Bolton pray.
ing for an amendment of the Factory Act; also a peti.
tion from 4. placu in Dorset praying fur the extension of
the jurisdiction of county courts. . _

Mr. HUMS presented a petition from a place in
Wales praying for the jurisdiction of county courts;
also two petitions from Leith against the Merchant
Seamen's Fund Bill; also two petitions fcom places
in Norfolk praying for the establishment of county
financial boards ; and a petition from Montreal
against the Marine Bill.

—Mr. COBDEN presented four petitions praying for
the extension of the jurisdiction of county courts.
Mr. MOWATT presented a petition from the inhabi-
tints of Edgeware-road praying for the repeal of all
taxes on knowledge.
Mr. M. GIBSON presented similar petitions.
Sir B. 11. INGLIS presented a petition against the
Marriage Bill.
Lord ASHLEY presented a petition from a place in
Yorkshire praying fur an amendment of the Factory
Act.