MR. E. ELLICE, seeing the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his place, begged to state to the House the reasons which had induced him to give the notice of Motion that appeared on the paper with respect to the introduction of a certain clause in Railway Bills. The clause of which he had given notice referred only to existing rights—it referred only to obligations that had been confirmed, sanctioned, and created by Parliament—it referred only to obligations in the nature of debentures, bonds, or guarantees, or whatever denomination they came under, that had legal rights attached to them; and all he asked to do was, to secure to the parties that held those obligations the full exercise of the legal rights they at present possess. It was a fact that was perfectly notorious, that a large amount of property had been invested in those securities. They had been looked upon as one of the most unexceptional 1090 sources of investment, and consequently money not otherwise usually employed for speculation—trust-money, and other moneys of that description—had been invested in this species of property. It was quite obvious they should prefer it, for they considered that they lent their money on the security of Act of Parliament, and, in fact, on the good faith of that House. He did not think the sufficiency of the property on which the obligation was taken at all entered into the merits of the question—that was at the risk of the parties advancing the money; they took the security of Parliament, and then rested upon their relative positions as creditor and debtor, and all he asked was to preserve inviolate their rights as creditors over the property of the debtors. Bills had been introduced this year which bad for their object the destruction or injury of the securities possessed by these parties. On the preceding night the House at once very properly rejected a Bill that had been brought in for the avowed purpose of taking away from parties that had advanced their money their guarantee for the security of it. At all events the Bill was to give the company power to alter the guarantee, and the House repudiated that attempt, which he would say was an attempt at spoliation. He thought the result would prevent any overt attempts being made of a similar nature, He had stated on the preceding night that other Bills had been introduced by which, in an indirect manner, the same object would be attained. He had declined to mention the particular cases, and would not do so, because his attention had been drawn only to one or two Bills, and there might be more Bills in a similar position; but the fact was, that such Bills had been introduced, and the alarm thereby created amongst the holders of this species of property was very great, and was followed by a great depreciation of that property. In support of this statement he had only to refer to breviats before the House, which had been published, with notes appended by the Commissioners of Railways, stating that attempts were made to give a preference over past guarantees, and no security was given that the past obligations of the companies were to be maintained. If there had been any notice of the circumstance by the House, the clause referred to in his notice of Motion would perhaps be unnecessary; but no such notice having been taken of it, and these notes haying gone forth to the 1091 public, it was natural that alarm should be created. In the absence of any such notice, persons might think that the House was inattentive to their interests; and though they had hitherto considered that they held their property inviolate, they would come to the conclusion that its value was to be affected. He thought that a remedy for the evil would be found in the adoption of the course proposed by him. He did not think it was a matter to be left to the Committee at all. He thought there was a great public principle at stake, involving the good faith of the House, and that therefore it was a matter which the House itself ought to settle. He knew it might be said that a majority of shareholders being guaranteed might compel the minority to succumb. He held it as a principle, that if a person bought a security on which an Act of Parliament sets a value, it would be a breach of good faith on the part of the House, by any act of the House to take away from the value of that security. As an individual he had a right to the protection of Parliament for what he bought on the faith of Parliament. This clause was verbatim a clause introduced last year by the Chairman of Ways and Means into the unopposed Bills brought before him. He (Mr. Ellice) had communicated with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and they felt that it was a matter that required great consideration. It was probable that this clause would not carry the matter far enough—that it was not stringent enough; and having received an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the subject would command his attention, as also the attention of the Commissioners of Railways, in order to devise means whereby the parties who had so invested their money would be duly secured, he would withdraw his Motion, and leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought that was the course that would be most satisfactory to the House, and conducive to the interest of the parties.
§ MR. W. PATTENhad intended to oppose the introduction of this clause, but agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it was better to leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would produce such a clause as would effect the objects they had in view, without inflicting injury on any parties. From the situation he held as Chairman of the 1092 Standing Orders Committee, he was aware that there were cases in which the shareholders themselves were asking relief from the difficulties in which they were placed, and where they were about stopping proceedings from the inability to raise funds.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREthought that the House should hold as a general rule that those who had preference shares should not be deprived of the security they possessed. He thought, however, the clause would require consideration before the House could agree to adopt it, and he was willing to consider in what form the House could most conveniently and properly effect the object desired.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.