COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 11 March 1861)

§ MR. KINNAIRD
expressed his regret at the course the Government had pursued upon this matter. No one could reasonably doubt the validity of the contract, and it was the first time in the history of this country, in a case where the faith of 1793 the Government was distinctly pledged, that faith had been broken with those who had advanced their money upon a Government guarantee. The contract had been drawn up by the Solicitor to the Treasury, and then the Attorney General had been employed to pick a hole in a contract thus prepared. The Government could hardly be aware of the feeling that had been excited in the City by the course they had taken, and he was convinced it would have a serious effect in deterring capitalists from advancing their money in future upon Government guarantees.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in his place when the Bill was read a third time, as the present position of affairs was not quite clear. The effect of the Bill would be to give to shareholders an annuity for forty-eight years at the rate of 4½ per cent upon their capital, with something added for the expenses of the Company. According to the present rate of Consols, the shareholders would be receiving something like £100,000 more than if, as provided under another article, they were repaid their whole capital. It was the duty of the Government to consider whether it would not be more for the benefit of the nation to repay the capital and take possession of the telegraph, worthless as it might be at the bottom of the sea.

§ MR. WYLD
said, he did not agree that the telegraph in its present position was worthless. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to propose a Committee to inquire into the circumstances of the telegraph, and certainly both this country and India had a right to demand that they should enjoy any benefit that might be derivable from the money already expended. He was informed that by the expenditure of £200,000 it was possible to restore the telegraph to working order.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
reprobated the conduct of the Government in evading responsibility by handing over this question to a Committee. It was a question they ought to decide for themselves.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
observed, that the House was now called upon to affirm the proceedings of a Select Committee without knowing what had passed before it. They were going to saddle the country with a burden of not less than from £1,200,000 to £1,400,000, taking the whole of the payments for forty-eight years, which would amount to that sum. 1794 He believed, indeed, that they were so tied up in the matter that they could not help doing it; but he would ask how was the assent of Parliament to that private Bill obtained? The Bill was substantially passed by the last Parliament, in which it went through all its stages, and when it first came before this House of Commons it was in the shape of an agreement to the Lords' Amendments. Now whatever was the guarantee entered into by the Government of that day it was one contingent on the passing of an Act of Parliament, but it could not have been contemplated that this House should be entrapped into passing such a Bill. They were now put in a most ridiculous position, for they were accused of not keeping faith, whilst they were going to vote away £36,000 a year for forty-eight years, and that for nothing at all, so that the money was literally thrown into the sea.

MR. PEEL
said, it was true that the present House of Parliament was not responsible for the contract. The opinion of the Attorney General was decided that under the contract the Government were not bound to pay as long as the line was not in working order; and, therefore, when the period for the payment of the charge arrived, as Parliament was not then sitting, it was clearly the proper course for the Government to abstain from paying the dividend until such time as they should have received express authority from Parliament. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had inquired whether the value of the annuity which Government was to be liable to pay for this long term of years was not in excess of the capital of the Company on which the interest was to be paid? He could not answer that question at the moment, but the subject should receive the consideration of the Government. It was to be observed, however, that the Government would retain after the passing of the Bill all the powers and remedies it might now be entitled to. The proceedings of the Committee were confined to the matter referred to them, which was simply to ascertain whether it was a conditional guarantee or not. The Committee examined those gentlemen and members of the Government who were most conversant with all the facts of the matter, and satisfied themselves that it had been the intention of the Government in making that contract, that the guarantee should take effect even although the line should not be in working order. The Government 1795 thereupon took care to confine the Bill strictly to a declaration to the effect that the Company should have guarantee for interest, although the line might not be in working order; but in every other particular it would leave the Government and the Company in the same relation to each other as they stood before. As to the question of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham the Committee had not considered the point, but he believed the Amendment in the House of Lords was to insert in a schedule the contract agreed to by the Government; and to that Amendment the consent of the House of Commons was necessary.

§ MR. VANSITTART
said that, if the Company were to receive 4½ per cent, what was the use of a board of directors who received £3,000 or £4,000 a year? If they were to give an imperial guarantee, of what use were these miserable directors?

§ MR. DUNLOP
said he did not see what other course the Government could have adopted after the opinion given by the Attorney General; but he hoped that Government would never give a guarantee of this kind again without the sanction of Parliament.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
again complained that the country should have to pay this annuity for a number of years.

MR. PEEL
said, that the Bill contained a provision enabling the Government to purchase up the annuity.