HC Deb 23 January 1846 vol 83 cc131-4
LORD JOHN RUSSELL

I will take this opportunity of asking a question of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to the mode in which the provisions of the Act 1 and 2 Victoria, regarding Railways, are to be carried into effect. The deposits required to be paid upon such undertakings are, by the Orders and Resolutions of this House, shortly to be paid into the Bank of England to the credit of the Accountant-General, and it is required that the payment be made in money. Last year the sum so paid in amounted to three millions. It is expected that this year the sum will be as high as nine millions; and apprehensions have been expressed, that the payment of so large a sum together must cause considerable inconvenience in the money market; and that apprehension has already made great difference with regard to the time for which money is advanced for commercial purposes. I do not wish to express any opinion whether any measures might be taken to arrange the matter; but I think it desirable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should state clearly, not only his views upon the subject, but what he intends to do, and also his reasons for those intentions. I beg to know if the right hon. Gentleman proposes to introduce any plan to alter the existing law?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, I feel extremely obliged to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity, if any doubt could exist after what has passed between myself and the individuals who have consulted me on the subject, of removing any doubt from the public mind, as to the course which the Government propose to take with respect to the payment of railway deposits. The House is aware that by a Standing Order of this House, all persons who have embarked in a railway are bound to make a deposit, previous to the presentation of their petition, of one-tenth upon three-fourths of the whole expense of the undertaking; and that, by an Act of Parliament passed in an antecedent Session, the parties who make that deposit have the right of having it invested by the Accountant-General in such Government securities as they think fit. About the middle of November last, an application was made to me by a very respectable party in the city of London, who represented that it was absolutely necessary at that particular period, that a definite answer should be given as to the course which the Government intended to pursue at the opening of the Session, with respect to the repeal or alteration of that Standing Order; and the proposal then made to me was (and it was described as essential to the security of the commercial interest), that the Government should propose, at the commencement of the Session, an alteration of the Resolution which should allow either Exchequer Bills, or Stock, or India Bonds, or Private Bills of Exchange, to be received in lieu of money, as directed by the Act of Parliament and the Orders of the House. It was represented to me, that it was essential to have the question then settled; because the question of discounts for a longer or shorter period materially depended upon the answer which might at that time be given. After due consideration, I stated that I did not feel authorized to give to the parties any assurance that there would be an alteration of the Standing Orders; and upon that resolution, so communicated to the party, I have every reason to believe that numbers of persons have acted, in making preparation for the payments which they may be called upon to make. Under these circumstances, I do not feel myself authorized to hold out any expectation to these parties, now that Parliament is assembled, that there will be, on my part, any proposal to alter the Standing Orders; nor should I be prepared to consent to it, if such a proposal were to be made by others. I have every reason to believe, that the apprehensions which are entertained upon this subject are not founded in fact, and that the difficulties which will arise in making the deposits have been greatly exaggerated; and I think it would be a bad reason for interfering with what has been long announced as the intention of Parliament with respect to railway deposits, and applicable, not merely to the present state of affairs, but those which may occur at other times, that because a difficulty has arisen from the extent of speculation, the Government should evince an anxiety to relieve some of the parties from embarrassments; especially when they are not calculated materially to affect the public interests. That is the ground on which I have refused to accede to the proposition.

LORD J. RUSSELL

I wish to explain that the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman, was not at all with a view to the benefit of parties deeply engaged in speculation, but to the guidance of others who may suffer inconvenience from the demand for money.

MR. MANGLES

observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to have taken a one-sided view of the question. He appeared to think that parties engaged in railway speculations were the only persons interested in the matter, and that Government ought not to step forward to relieve them from the consequences of their own imprudence. The right hon. Gentleman forgot, or did not know, that the question affected the whole commerce of the country. He (Mr. Mangles) happened to know that within a few days some parties had found difficulties in obtaining the usual pecuniary accommodation, because those who granted such accommodation, under ordinary circumstances, would not part with their money in ignorance of what the coming crisis might produce. The real object in requiring the deposit of money, was to be certain that speculations in railways were really undertaken by parties who intended to carry them out; and, for the sake of arriving at that single fact, the whole commerce of the country was to be thrown into considerable embarrassment. He did not exaggerate the matter when he said that great commercial difficulty would be occasioned.

MR. MASTERMAN

regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had felt called upon to make such a statement. He had himself pressed upon the attention of Government, in the interview he had had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the inconvenience he was sure would be suffered by the community at large, not on behalf of railroad speculators, but of the commercial interest generally. By refusing to adopt what he (Mr. Masterman) had ventured to suggest, the right hon. Gentleman was not punishing railroad speculators, but preventing the commercial interest from obtaining legitimate accommodation. He could state, from his own knowledge of the money market, that considerable inconvenience had been already experienced; people had felt themselves obliged to save up their money, and accommodation had been either refused or only granted at a high rate of interest. He could have wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to give a more favourable answer, as much inconvenience would be felt within the next fourteen days.