§ Order for Committee read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
§ SIR W. VERNERbegged to call the attention of the House to the proceedings of the Railway Commissioners, and the Waterford, Wexford, and Dublin Railway Company. He would therefore move an Amendment for that purpose.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'as the Statements contained in the Printed Papers, No. 297, and in the Petitions before the House, regarding the Waterford, Wexford, and Dublin Railway Company, and the proceedings of the Commissioners of Railways, concern the Privileges of this House, and the integrity of its Members and Officers, an Inquiry be made into the said Printed Papers and Petitions, and the loss of Documents, important to the Shareholders, abstracted from the Offices of this House, and ordered by this House on the 22nd day of March last to be produced:—Also to consider Measures for the better protection of the Public and Shareholders, and the carrying out of Public Measures and Resolutions sanctioned by this House; and remedies for the said loss;'—instead thereof.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREdid not think there were any grounds laid for inquiry. The period of the Session was in itself no inconsiderable reason against embarking in such a proceeding; and there appeared other very substantial reasons against the Motion. All that could be heard would be statements and counter-statements, and the House had really no means of forming a judgment. The proposed inquiry into the circumstances of the alleged abstraction of documents from offices connected with that House, would be superfluous, for it had already taken place where it could be taken upon oath, namely, before the House of Lords; and that House, if blame had attached to the officers of the House of Commons, would doubtless have informed this House, that it might proceed to punish them. He could not consent to a Committee, which would imply blame on them, believing that there was not the slightest ground for suspicion as to the manner in which they had performed their duties. As to the abstraction of these documents, a more unfounded suspicion could not exist. As to the statement that the Commissioners of Railways did not enter into the necessary inquiries on this subject, he would tell the House what really had 640 occurred. Mr. Nash, a gentleman connected with the railway, had sent on behalf of a portion of the shareholders a large quantity of documents to the Commissioners, entering largely into some disputes between those shareholders and the directors, and had also frequently requested interviews with the Commissioners. The reply sent by the Commissioners was, that they had nothing to do with those disputes, but that if Mr. Nash would send to them in writing a statement of any point respecting which they ought to interfere, or to which their functions applied, they would immediately grant him an interview. The Commissioners had never received any statement in reply, and they had refused to allow Mr. Nash to drag them into such a discussion, or to force them to express any opinion as to these squabbles and disputes between shareholders and directors. It was not the duty of a public department to interfere in matters which did not concern them, and that was his answer to this allegation against the Railway Commissioners. He must beg the House not to agree to the hon. Baronet's Motion, and he could not think they ought to occupy their time with a question which had been fully considered already by the other branch of the Legislature, and with respect to which they (the House of Lords) had expressed no unfavourable opinion of the officers of that House.
§ MR. SCULLYthought, if the right hon. Gentleman and the Railway Board refused to take up this subject, the House of Commons was bound to consider it. Where else were the shareholders to look for redress? [The hon. Gentleman, at some length, went into an analysis of the financial position of the company, and complained of the practices of the directors in their attempt to impede the action of the London deputation of shareholders, by inducing the shareholders to withdraw their proxies, as well as of the extravagance of the directors.] Among the items to which he particularly wished to call the attention of the House, was one for "a white-bait dinner at Greenwich," and for "the expenses of the journey of Sir Thomas Esmonde to London," at the height of the season. They might talk of referring the matter to the Court of Chancery; but it might go on for ever there without being decided, and the expense would be ruinous. It was very extraordi- 641 nary that the person who was responsible for a document which had been abstracted had since absconded. The directors had spent 40,000?. in cutting down two hills at Bray, near Dublin, and had never attempted to get beyond them. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh did not want a Committee of Inquiry to issue now, but merely asked the House to decide that inquiry should be made, and he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would press his Motion to a division.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLsaid, that two bills had been filed in Chancery against the directors, and an injunction had been granted against proceeding with the works. Under these circumstances the House ought not to interfere with the case; for, though the Court of Chancery might be tedious, it was on such a matter likely to be as speedy as a Committee. Besides, a Committee would not have the power of examining a witness on oath; and, without going into the painful question of what had happened in the House of Lords, he might say that the power of examining the prime mover of this business on oath would afford a strong sanction to his evidence. As to cutting down the two hills, it was usual with railways to set to work first where there were the greatest difficulties.
§ MR. H. BROWNthought the statement of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade very extraordinary, considering the Railway Commission, of which he was at the head, had been specially constituted to entertain such matters. The right hon. Gentleman could have found a much better excuse for refusing inquiry than saying the House of Lords had made no remark on the conduct of officers of the House of Commons.
§ MR. REYNOLDSsaid, no good could possibly result from the Motion, which might do a great deal of harm, in interfering with a case which was under consideration in a court of law. They had heard grave charges against the directors; but was it likely that a board, of which the Earl of Besborough, the Earl of Coin-town, and Sir Thomas Esmonde, were members, could be parties to such malpractices? He believed Mr. Nash was at the bottom of this Motion, and had made a tool of the hon. and gallant Member.
§ SIR T. O'BRIENsupported the Motion. The Dublin meetings were unanimous that to proceed with the railway would be ruinous. He had been offered a release 642 from all claims on account of his shares if he would withdraw his proxies from the London deputation.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.