§ MR. DEEDESmoved the following Resolution to follow Standing Order 162:—
When in any Bill a provision is inserted authorizing any Company to subscribe towards or to guarantee or to raise any money in aid of the undertaking of another Company (which Bill is not brought in by the Company so authorized, or of which such Company is not a joint promoter), proof shall be required before the Examiner that the Company so authorized has consented to such subscription, guarantee, or raising of money, at a meeting of the proprietors of the ordinary shares in such Company, held specially for that purpose, in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as the meeting directed to be hold under Standing Order 162, and that such consent was given by such proprietors, present in person or by proxy, holding at least three-fourths of the ordinary paid-up capital of the Company represented at such meeting, such proprietors being qualified to vote at the meeting in right of such capital; and that the Notices for the Bill state the sum authorized to be subscribed, or guaranteed or raised, and also state that the consent of the Company has been given as aforesaid; in any case in which such consent has been given, it shall not be necessary to submit the Bill, in respect of such provision as aforesaid, to the approval of a meeting to be held in accordance with Standing Order 162.The hon. Member said that these Resolutions had received the unanimous approval of the Members of the Standing Orders Committee, and that Resolutions similar in principle had been adopted in the House of Lords. He hoped, therefore, that there would be no objection to the Motion.
§ COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that some time ago he put the question, whether there was any intention to propose any alterations in the Standing Orders of that House this Session? and he was assured that there was none. Under these circumstances, and at this late period of the 1799 Session, it was not acting fairly by the House to submit a proposition of this nature, which was one calculated at the present time to give rise to considerable inconvenience, and he should feel it his duty to offer every opposition to it.
§ MR. LOCKEmust confess that he saw no necessity for entering this Resolution as a Standing Order of the House.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsupported the Motion, which would afford a security that when railway companies approached the Legislature they were in a position to carry out the engagements which they had contracted.
MR. HENLEYalso supported the Motion. It would prevent railway shareholders from being bound by arrangements entered into by directors without their sanction; and it would effect that object by requiring that the assent of the shareholders should be obtained before the introduction of a Bill, instead of being obtained during its progress.
§ MR. BONHAM-CARTER, as a Member of the Standing Orders' Committee, could assert that no injury would be done to any one by this new Standing Order, which would limit a certain class of speculative private Bills. It was not customary to propose any change in the Standing Orders except at the end of the Session.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Standing Order 163 read, and repealed.
§
Ordered,
In case any proprietor in any Company shall by himself, or any person authorised to act for him in that behalf, have dissented at any meeting called in pursuance of Standing Order 162, or the last preceding Standing Order, such proprietor shall be permitted to be heard by the Examiners of Petitions, on the compliance with such Standing Order, by himself, his agents and witnesses, on a Memorial addressed to the Examiners, or by the Committee on the proposed Bill, by himself, his counsel or agents and witnesses, on a Petition presented to the House, such Memorial or Petition having been duly deposited in the Private Bill Office.
§ Ordered, That the said Orders be Standing Orders of this House.