The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-05 00:00:00

'THE SHOULDHAM DIVORCE BILL.

This Bill was read a second time.
RAILWAY FRAUDS.—THE LONDON AND
YORK LINE.

Mr. HAWES rose to present a petition from the
Chairman of the Cambridge and Lincoln Railway Com-
pany, who stated that his attention had been called to
the subscription list of the London and York Company,
and by the aid of himself and agents he had discovered
that the names who kad subscribed half a million to the
contract deed repreZrited persons that were not living,
or whose places of abode were wrongly given. In
addition to which were many names of paupers,
or persons who had no visible means of 'meeting their en-
gagements. The petitioner's inquiries were not yet
ended, but the petitioner expressed that he had no doubt
he would be able to discover many more frauds and
forgeries in addition to those already set forth. If a
Committee of inquiry were appointed, he was prepared
to establish these allegations before it. The peti-
tion contained the names of many perties who,
upon inquiry, would be found altogether in •
competent to meet the demands made upon them.
As he would have a chance of speaking on the third read-
ing of the Bill, all he would now do, would be to move
that the petition be printed with the votes to morrow.
To-morrow it was his intention to make a motion upon it.
Mr. B. DENISON said he had been allowed to look
over the petition before it was presented, and saw one
name attached to the petition as a party who was repre-
sented to be incompetent to meet the amount for which
he had subscribed. Now, he knew that gentleman to be a
most respectable solicitor, and also that he was compe-
tent to pay six times the amount he had subscribed for.
They might judge from this fact what the petition was
worth.

An HON. MEMBER inquired the name of the party in
question.
Mr. B. DENlSON—Michael Thomas Baxter.
The SPEAKER asked if it was the intention of the
Hon. Member (Mr. Denison) to object to the printing of
the petition.
Mr. DENISON—Yes, he most certainly objected
to the printing of it. He should not try to stop
the progress of the Bill by objecting to the third
reading, neither had he any objection to have the
petition inquired into, but he wished to allude to
this circumstance—a paper headed urgent, dated
August, and signed Joseph Croucher, Parliamentary
agent--(Hear, hear, and laughter)—(Parliamentary
agents were, to a certain extent, under the control
of the House, and surely it was a breach of privilege of
a person following such an occupation so to act)—
and directed to the postmaster of Reigate (so we under-
stood), inquiring whether Edward Foster and Mr. Chap-
man—(Hear, hear)—(who he believed was a director of
the Company) resided in that neighbourhood, and asking
for information respecting them. It also appeared that
such circulars were sent to almost every town in
the kingdom, in which it was supposed any person
who held shares in the London and York resided. lle
also understood that persons had been going about Lon-
don, for the last four•and-twenty hours, making inqui-
ries respecting the residences and occupations of those
who held shares in the Company. lie also believed that
the petition had been got up for the purpose of stopping
the progress of the Bill, and was of a similar charac-
ter to the objections made with respect to the sections.
The promoters of the Bill were taken by surprise by
this allegation, and they sent down their surveyors to
ascertain if there was any truth in it, when it turned out
to be all fudge, but not until they had been put to a
great deal of trouble and expense. He only men-
tioned this to show what had already been done

for the purpose of wearying the time of the Committee
and Directors, in order that the London and York Bill
might not get the benefit of the resolution which the
House had lately passed ; and the present petition, he
believed, had been brought forward with precisely
the same object. He should certainly, therefore,
oppose the motion for having the petition printed.
Mr. B. HAWES knew nothing of those who were
promoting the line, nor had he had any sort of com-
munication, either directly or indirectly, with the

parties to this petition. It was brought to
him by a most respectable man, and it was
signed by a gentleman no less respectable,
the chairman of the Cambridge and Ely line. He was
informed that the petition included the names of persons
who represented 658,0001. in the Company who were
quite unknown ; 200,000/. was represented by fictitious
subscribers ; and 145,0001. by parties wholly irrespon-
sible. Now, whatever the Honourable Member
might say of the conduct of those who opposed the Bill,
he could assure the House that he stated these facts upon
the best possible evidence, and he was satisfied in his
own mind that they ought to be inquired into. There
was one gentleman who was represented to be residing
in Finsbury-square, and who had subscribed for 130,0004,
but on inquiry no such person could be
found. There was another person, who stood for
500,0001., who was receiving alms from the Charter-
house, and whose name stood on the Parliamentary list
as a railway subscriber for 51,0001. He had not
the slightest interest directly or indirectly in
the line, and it was perfectly immaterial to him whether
the House passed it or not, but he thought,
nevertheless, they ought to inquire into these abuses.
He thought the House ought not to refuse receiving a
petition brought forward by respectable parties, and
containing allegations of such a character. But he had
done his duty in laying it before the House. He had
stated his belief in the respectability of the parties who
had signed it, and from the inquiries that had been made
by himself he was of opinion that the allegations in the
petition ought to receive the attention of the House.
Mr. BERNAL said that he knew nothing of the
parties connected with the Cambridge and Lincoln Rail-
way, but he knew quite enough of railways to be aware
that all the care the House could take would not put an
end to stock-jobbing or gambling speculations, with the
mischiefs which must arise from them. He had no wish to
complain of the parties who had signed this petition. He
did not complain of his Hon. Friend—he had no doubt of
his sincerity, but he did complain that his Hon. Friend
should characterise any refusal of the House to receive
this petition as unjust, and as depriving those parties
of a remedy. Why, they were well aware that there
was another tribunal, even if they refused his Hon.
Friend's motion. They were not shut out from an after
tribunal, and he might ask his Honourable Friend
if these circumstances were of so novel a character
that he must come down to the House on the third read-
ing, like a thunderbolt, to shake the merits of this case.
As he had before said there was another tribunal, even
if the House refused to consider the motion of his Hon.
Friend.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that the Hon. Member who had
last spoken had compared the presentation of this petition
to a coming down to the House like a thunderbolt, and
he thought proper to find fault with his Hon. Friend the
Member for Lambeth for presenting it. But what did
the petition allege ? Why, that a fraud had been prac-
tised upon the House of Commons. It was not that a
fraud had been committed upon the Lincoln and Cam-
bridge Company, but the assertion was that a fraud had
been Committed on the House of Commons. But had
they not a precedent of this character ? Some time ago
they had passed a Bill respecting Ireland. That was
taken to the House of Lords ; and, after being subjected
to a searching ordeal, they discovered that after that
House (the Commons) had performed their duties—du-
ties performed to no purpose—one half of the list was
fraudulent. As the common saying had it, what was
sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and
what was applicable in the north of Ireland should be
applicable to the north of England. They turned out
the Dublin and Galway Bill for a fraud on the House
of Commons. The f, and was indeed proved in the
House of Lords, and this was proved in the House of
Commons.
An HON. MEMBER—Not proved yet.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Not proved yet, certainly. Why,
it seemed to him that the House, by refusing this
inquiry, got rid of their functions and neutralised their
own powers. To the searching inquiries of a Noble and
Learned Lord, in the other House, was the country in-
debted for the eiscovety that 5 or 60,000/. was sub•
scribed by persons who were almost literally partperS4
and now they seemed about to send up a similar ease to
the same House—a case, too, involving a fraud en the
House of Commons.
Mr. WARD was opposed to the London and York line,
but he had one objection to the motion of his Hon.
Friend, arising from the peculiar circumstances of the case.
The effect of this motion would be. if applied in tuture,
that no railway Bill would be enabled to pus at the close
of the session. He granted that it was discreditable to
any Committee of that House to pass over such an error,
but the case was very different to the Dublin and Galway.
The allegation of, snob an error was tnad, by Mr. Cockburn,
and the Committee deiired to Si e the share list, which was
not produced, and finally the objection was withdrawn. He

trusted that his Hon. Friend would withdraw this motion,

for its effect was this :—lt was known in the City in the
morning that this motion would be made, and the con-
sequence was, that the shares of the company rose as the
other fell. He thought that the House ought to look
with suspicion on a motion like this upon the third read-
.

. .
ing of any Bill.
Mr. DARBY would take that opportunity of saying
that the original share list was before the Committee,
and every word of the deed was discussed and com-
mented on, and there never was a hint thrown out

against the respectability of the persons who had signed
the deed.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. No di-
vision, however, took place, the motion having; as we
understood, been agreed to.
After a few words from Mr. COLLETT,

Mr. B. DENNISON then moved that the London and
York Railway Bill be read a third time.
Mr. HAWES said he wished to say a few words on
this subject. After what had taken place on the Gal-
way Bill, and after the allegations contained in the peti-
tion which had been presented to the House, he thought
investigation was highly desirable. It had been
stated that the subscription contract of the Lon-
don and York was unimpeachable, but such
was not now the case. Now, it appeared that all the
companies had agreed that they would not impeach the
contract deeds of one another before the Standing Orders
Committee, so that in fact these deeds might, for
anything the House knew, have been altogether
fraudulent ; under such circumstances, it was not at
all surprising that these deeds should not have been

sooner impeached.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, he would move that the third
reading of this Bill take place upon that day three
months. His reasons were numerous—first, the Legisla-
ture had ordained that, as a protection for the psiblic, the
Bills should be examined in the Standing Orders
Conunittee : it was distinctly understood that the
contract deed should be of a boars fide character—that
was, that the subscriptions and addresses of the par-
ties should be genuine. If the Standing Ordttrs4 Com-
mittee was worth anything, it surely velßt requisite that
a full and searching inquiry should be gone into._ • The
petition Lefere the House alleged a fraud--ire did
.not mean to say that his Hon. Friend opposite (Mr.
Dennison) was in any way privy to or cognizant of
these frauds, but the question was, would the House in
the face of this allegation pass the Bill ? Why, the fraud

could not be denied; It was easy for the Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Dennison) to shake his head, but

would he disprove the allegations contained in
the petition in Committee ? Everybody knew that the
proceedings relative to the Standing Orders Committee
were carried on in a manner that astounded the whole

community. The disclosures came upon them like a
thunder clap. They could not go anywhere
without hearing " railway shares" in everybody's
mouth. In fact, every man and woman in so-
ciety talked of railway shares. The present rail-
way excitement was a monstrous phenomenon. If it

were asked why he came at the elev-enth hour he would
answer, it was only at the eleventh hour the frauds had
been discovered. These frauds had now reached their

height, and it was their duty-now to
its growth—
should not the House stop the progress of the Bill, when
parties were ready to prove that fraud had been com-
mitted ?

Mr. HAWES seconded the motion.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN said it was really too bad.
if, after the Committee had spent eighty, days in
investigating all matters connected with this rail-
way, and after an expenditure of 100,0001., parties
were now at the eleventh hour allowed to come forward

and stop the progress of the Bill. Even suppose the
contract deed were fraudulent to the amount of 600,000%,

there was still ample capital to carry out the umiler-
taking. If the passing of this Bill were postponed,
he would never again sit on a Railway Committee.
Mr. AGLIONBY knew nothing of the merits of the
Bill, but he rose to answer one observation of the Hon.

Gentleman who just sat down. As to the standing

orders—it was an error to suppose that they gave to the
public the protection which they were intended to give.
One mode of defeating this object was that, when there
were two rival companies for the same line, those com-
panies agreed mutually not to oppose each other in the
Standing Orders Committee, lest both Bills should be
lost. The Committee had no means of preventing frauds,
but he hoped that the House would by next session take
measures to prevent the repetition of such frauds as had
been detected this session. With respect. to the asper-
sions which had been cast upon some Members of that
House, he would pledge himself to the douse, that so
long as he was in a Committee of a judicial character be
would have nothing to do with any railway. He hoped
something would be done to prevent the combination of
great companies to sacrifice the interests of the public.
Mr. WARD said there was one point which the Hon.
Gentleman had not looked to, that was the large amount
of money that was expended upon the northern railway
projects, before they came before the Standing OrdersCom-
rnittee. The sum expended amongst these—successful and
unsuccessful—was upwards of 100,0001. Under these cir-
cumstances it was not fraud upon the public or
the House, but to prevent the sacrifice of so
much money.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to what
his Hon. Friend had said of Members taking shares in
railway Companies ; he, for one, was not ashamed to
say that he held such shares—(Hear, hear)—and be
thought it was of importance to the public that mon of
station and responsibility stniuld be so connected with
railways. He (Mr. Ward) never felt happier in his life
than when he saw any of those great enterprises carried
to a successful conclusion.

Mr. AGLIONBY did not in the slightest degree in-
tend to reflect upon the conduct of any lion. Member in
that house.

Mr. B. DENNISON said many observations had
been made respecting the compromise which bud been
entered into between the parties respectkg the
standing orders. That compromise did take
place, and he was glad to have the opportunity
of explaining the matter to the House. He
received himself, in February or March last, a note
from Mr. Lang, of the Beard of Trade, appointing
an interview. In consequence of that note. be
went to the Board of Trade, and Mr. Lang
proposed to him that all contention before the
Standing Orders Committee between the respec-
tive parties should be suspended. On the part of
the London and York Company he at once agreed
to the arrangement, provided all other lines com-
peting with the London and York would agree to
the same terms. The agreement was drawn up by the
solicitors, and was signed by the respective parties.
That agreement was religiously kept by the London and
York Company, and he put it to the House whether
it was good taste in the' perions who had signed the
petition that had been presented that evening, to come
to that House and complain of the London and York,
ore of those parties being chairman of an opposing line.
After a few words from Mr. R. COLLETT, strangers
were ordered to withdraw, but no division took place.
Mr. HAWES, amid the noise which followed, was
understood to say that he had a particular wish to have
the Bill printed.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.

PROPERTY- rAx.
Captain PECHELL presented a petition from a. pri •
vate individual, complaining of the manner in which he
had been oppressed by the levy of the property-tax.
Mr. MARK PHILIPS presented a pe:ition from the
tailors of Manchester, complaining that they were com-
pelled to work in unhealthy places.
Mr. GROGAN presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of the North Dublin Union, praying for certain
amendments in the Irish Poor Relief Act.
Mr. MACKINNON said he begged to give notice
that he would, early in the ensuing session, bring for-
ward a motion against interments in or near large towns.