§ The Earl of Hardwickepresented a petition from John Frederick Stanford, of Langham-place, esquire, stating that he was a holder of shares in the Dublin and Galway Railway, which he had been 1080 induced to purchase in consequence of the Report of the Board of Trade being in its favour, and praying to be heard at the bar of their Lordships' House on his own behalf, and on behalf of other shareholders.
Lord Broughamsaid, the petitioner was a member of his own profession, and a most respectable gentleman, and he (Lord Brougham) was exceedingly sorry that he had not invested his money in some other funds. But perhaps the Board of Trade would think it their duly to grant him some relief.
The Earl of Dalhousiesaid, the Report of the Board of Trade in favour of the line was a perfectly good Report. With respect to the funds under the control of the Board, he regretted to say they were very limited indeed, but he should be happy to have the advice of the noble and learned Lord as to their disposal.
The Earl of Besboroughsaid, in moving on a former occasion the second reading of this Bill, he did so for the purpose of giving an opportunity of having it referred to a Select Committee, who would report on all the remaining allegations against it. Before making the Motion, of which he had given notice on the preceding day, it was necessary that he should call their Lordships' attention to the further Report which had been presented from the Committee by the noble Lord opposite (Earl Bathurst). After reading some passages from the Report, describing the course of systematic fraud that in the opinion of the Committee had been practised in getting up the subscription contract deed, the noble Earl proceeded to say that he knew it would be maintained that the same system had been adopted in respect to many other railways, indeed in most other railways. He did not, however, think, that that should induce their Lordships to pass over a case of this kind, which had been substantiated by two Committees of their Lordships' House, even if all the railway projects which had passed through Parliament had been got up in the same manner. It was true that the promoters of this railway now state their readiness to put in so many solvent names in their deed as would make up the number required by Parliament. But even that circumstance could not, he thought, alter the decision to which their Lordships should come, as, if the Standing Order respecting the contract deed was of 1081 any value, it ought to be adhered to regularly and in all cases. He was quite aware that there were many upright persons who were ready to take shares in this Company, under the idea that they would be promoting a Bill which was calculated to forward a great public work in Ireland, and open a line of railway through a part of the country where it would prove most beneficial; and it was also an important consideration that it would be the means of giving employment to a vast number of persons, who, at this season of the year, would be otherwise unable to procure work. He was aware that much evil would arise from a rejection of the Bill, on these grounds; but still he believed that a much greater evil would result—considering the circumstances of Ireland, now just commencing great public works of this kind, if the Parliament were to depart in their favour from the rules which it had laid down, and which were necessary to be followed in the proper construction of all railways. Under these circumstances, he felt obliged to move that the further consideration of the Bill of the Irish Great Western Railway Company for the construction of a railway from Dublin to Galway be put off to this day three months.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, he had to oppose the Motion of his noble Friend; and if he had no other ground for doing so, he felt that a paragraph in the last Report of the Committee would justify him in requiring an adjournment of this debate. He was informed that the sentence to which he alluded was written by a noble Lord, under a total misapprehension of the facts; and that there was no evidence whatever to support it, because no such could have been given, as nothing of the kind had, he was given to understand, ever taken place. The sentence of the Report to which he alluded was in these words:—"That systematic fraud has been used for the purpose of obtaining the necessary number of signatures to the subscription contract." He could state, without hesitation, that that was a total misapprehension of the facts. There was no doubt but that gross frauds had been exercised for the purpose of obtaining scrip and allotments of shares in the Company; but as the sentence in the Report read, it would appear that these frauds had been perpetrated by the promoters and directors of the Company, instead 1082 of by totally distinct individuals. If it turned out that he had been misinformed, he would at once give up the Bill and the Company; but he thought so serious an allegation was one that should not be allowed to pass without inquiry. He would say nothing more at present, except to move that the debate be adjourned, with a view to have the evidence taken before the Committee printed. He might be permitted to add, that with this Company he had no personal connexion whatever. He did not hold one shilling's worth of shares, he was sorry to say, in that or any other railway company; he had no railway shares whatever, though he wished he had; but, as a person having property in the west of Ireland, he felt extremely interested in the Dublin and Galway Railway. The noble Marquess concluded by moving that the debate be adjourned, in order that an opportunity might be afforded of having the evidence taken before the Committee printed.
Lord Broughamsaid, that instead of there being no evidence yet before the House, there were upwards of a hundred pages of evidence already printed and before the House upon this very subject. Having been a member of the Committee, he would state exactly how the matter stood. There was no doubt but that there were two different kinds of fraud in these cases. In one, the fraud might be committed against the Company, namely, by persons forging names, and writing fictitious and fabricated letters, in order to get allotments of scrip; and, in the other, the fraud would be on the House; namely, by persons connected with the Company—he did not mean respectable Gentlemen, like some of those at the head of this Company; but agents or persons employed under them, getting up contract lists for the purpose of complying nominally and fictitiously and fraudulently with the Standing Orders of Parliament. But he would show their Lordships in what way these two classes of fraud became one fraud on the House. He now spoke from the evidence. It was needless to say, that the persons promoting these companies were not those whose names appeared at the head of them, very likely for patriotic and public purposes; but they were a set of harpies who wished to gamble in the share market, and a set of persons whom he would not otherwise designate but as professional men—such 1083 as engineers and land surveyors, who were great promoters of railway schemes for their own private purposes, in order to obtain employment; and these parties all interested themselves to promote the Bill in the manner which he would state to the House. They might get up fabricated lists by directly fabricating names, by forging signatures, by putting down names of persons who had no existence, or who resided in the West Indies, or who were parish paupers. That was one mode, and a most clumsy one, of committing fraud; but there was also another mode by which fraud could be practised against the House. It was to issue a prospectus with a flourishing and puffing account of the scheme that was about to be brought forward, and to declare at the same time that whoever applied for shares would have allotments; and if the promoters after this took no steps to ascertain that the applications which they received were real applications—if they wilfully shut their eyes against attempts at fraud, and received the applications, in nine cases out of ten, or perhaps in ninety-nine cases out of 100, without inquiry—was it not precisely the same thing as if they were themselves guilty of the fabrications, and were in a conspiracy to deceive the House? Now, what was the evidence in the present case? The Committee took it all from the agents of the Company—from the parties themselves; and yet the facts stated to them were, that 970 persons had applied for shares, and that of these only 111 gave any references at all to show whether they were really existent or solvent persons or not. But was that the way with the London and York Railway Company? No; for, on the contrary, the moment they got any letters without references they threw them into the fire. Not so, however, with the Dublin and Galway Company. They received all applications, though only 111 of them were accompanied with any references, and of these they instituted inquiries into only twenty-nine, out of which fourteen were found to be totally unknown. They thought it better, therefore, not to inquire further, and actually gave shares to the other eighty applicants, without making a single inquiry into the references which had been given. What was the consequence? They alloted thirty shares to Mr. Henry Penton, of Crosby Hall Chambers, who never had an existence in the world; ten to Mr. William 1084 Baldron, a silkthrowster in London some years ago, but who went to the West Indies seven or eight years ago; and shares to the amount of 3,500l. to Margaret Meredith, a parish pauper! The letters were examined in four hours—allowing ten seconds for each letter. They knew that if they wanted to carry their Bill they must have a list of a sufficient number; for which reason they closed their eyes. Now, if a person had the means of inquiring, and did not choose to inquire, he was just to be treated as if he did. He had every reason to believe that this was a great and beneficial public work, that it was wished for by the people of Ireland, and that it was calculated to confer great benefit on that country; but even so, the House was bound to protect itself where deliberate fraud was attempted to be perpetrated against it. He would, therefore, heartily support the Motion of his noble Friend.
§ Lord Monteaglesaid, he had been a Member of the Committee, and if their Lordships would do him the honour of remembering anything that had fallen from one so unimportant as he was, they would not forget that, when the petition in this case had been presented by the noble Duke, he had declared that he thought it would be better that all the railroads in the country should be lost, than that the House should refuse to inquire into a petition like that, involving an accumulated charge of forgery, fraud, and innumerable other offences. That petition had been referred to a Select Committee, and the evidence taken before that Committee had been reported and laid on their Lordships' Table. On that evidence he, for one, would have been perfectly prepared to support a Motion for postponing the further consideration of the Bill for six months. He thought the evidence so clear and conclusive, that he would have no hesitation in coming to that vote on that occasion. But he wished to call their Lordships' attention to the course which the House had taken subsequent to that time. If the question had rested on the evidence, he would, as he had before stated, have been prepared to negative it; but their Lordships did not come to that conclusion. They thought proper to refer the petition, with the Report and the evidence, to the Select Committee appointed to consider the Bill itself—thus showing that they required 1085 some further evidence. The Motion of the noble Marquess was, that the House should be put in possession of that additional evidence, and he could not help thinking that it was consistent with the course taken by the House itself in requiring additional evidence to be taken. He could not apprehend that the evidence when produced would affect the final vote to which they should come. Still the fact of the House requiring further evidence would seem to imply that the evidence already had would not be sufficient to justify the rejection of the Bill. He was inclined, therefore, to support the Motion of the noble Marquess, more especially as there was criminatory matter contained in the Report.
After a short conversation, in which the Earl of Besborough, the Marquess of Clanricarde, Lord Stanley, Lord Redesdale, and Earl Bathurst took part, debate adjourned to Monday next; the evidence taken before the said Committee ordered to be laid before the House.