Lords Sitting of 13 March 1845

MINUTES.
Sat first.—The Marquess of Westminster, after the Death of his Father.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Property Tax; Consolidated Fund; City of London Trade; Divorce.
2a. Companies Clauses Consolidation; Companies Clauses Consolidation (Scotland).
Reported.—Jewish Disabilities Removal; Stamp Duties Assimilation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Members of West Suffolk Agricultural Society and others, for Protection to Agriculture.—By Lord Campbell, from Irvine, against any Alteration in the present System of Banking (Scotland).—By the Earl of Wicklow, from Guardians of Strabane Union, for Alteration of Poor Laws (Ireland).—By Lord Brougham, from Non-Freemen and Householders of the City of London, for Abolishing Freedom Fines, and all Exclusive Privileges of Trading in the City of London.—By the Earl of Devon, from Proprietors of Rochdale Canal, for Regulating Charges for Conveyance of Goods by Railway.—By the Earl of Devon, from Tradesmen of Exeter, for the Repeal of the 57th Clause of the Insolvent Debtors Act.

NON-FREEMEN OF LONDON.
Lord Broughampresented a petition from a great number of householders in the City of London, who were non-freemen, setting forth that they were threatened with proceedings by the Corporation of the City of London to compel them to take up their freedom, which would be attended with a cost of not less than 11 l. 6s. 4d. This applied not only to eminent wholesale dealers, but to the smallest shopkeepers, and even to porters, carters, and the lowest artizans. It was considered a grievous and oppressive monopoly. It formed a remnant of the feudal times, when a distinction existed between bondmen and freemen. The petitioners prayed relief. He begged to inform their Lordships, that as soon as the petition should be received, he would present a Bill to their Lordships to remedy the evil complained of, by extending to the City of London the 14th section of 5 and 6 William IV., which abolished all these rights of freedom in every other city, town, and borough in the kingdom.
The petition having been received,
Lord Broughambrought in a Bill, entitled "A Bill for enabling all Persons to trade and work within the City of London," which was read 1a.

THE YORK AND LONDON RAILWAY.
Lord Broughamwished to move for a Return, if it should meet the approbation
772
of his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The Return he required was a statement of the day and the time of the day on which the Railway Board attended on the York and London Railway. The time of the day was very material; because he could tell his noble Friend that, with all his precaution to preserve secrecy, the fact of the Board having rejected the York and London Railway was just as well known on the Stock Exchange at twelve o'clock of the day on which it took place, as it was after the fact had been published in the Gazette. The price of shares in that railway fell between two and three per cent. at twelve o'clock, after the fact of its rejection had become known. His information proceeded from a highly respectable stock-broker, who was on the Stock Exchange at the time. What he (Lord Brougham) therefore further wished to have was a return of the price of stock in said railway at twelve o'clock on Tuesday the 11th of March, and at four o'clock on the same day. He should also like to know who the sellers and purchasers were after the hour of twelve: for he believed that if he knew their names he should know some knaves.
The Earl of Dalhousiefelt some difficulty in answering the question of his noble and learned Friend. He had already stated to their Lordships, that he was on all occasions desirous to afford every possible information that it could be for the interest of the public to give. He had no objection to make a Return to the House stating the hour at which the Board of Trade came to a decision in the case of the York and London Railway, if it were practicable; but he had no means of making that statement officially, as no minute was made as to the exact hour when any particular business was transacted. But this he could inform his noble Friend, that the Board at which the decision was made, was held in the afternoon of Tuesday. He was not the least inclined to contest the fact, that a fall took place in the value of shares; but he utterly denied that this fall was in consequence of any previous knowledge of that decision. The decision could not have been known so early as twelve o'clock, because it was not come to till the afternoon. The inference of his noble and learned Friend was, that a previous knowledge of the decision must have been obtained from a communication

773
made by a Member of the Board, or that, in consequence of imperfect precautions for concealment, the opinions of the Board must have become revealed. He (the Earl of Dalhousie) denied both of these alternatives. It was perfectly well known that there had been three distinct parties contending for effecting a line of railway between London and York. One was called the London and York Railway; another, the Cambridge and Lincoln Railway; and the third, the Direct Northern Railway. Each of these were concerns of great extent and power; each had the command of large capital capable of carrying their schemes into effect. Every one of these parties was prepared to contest to the last its claims before Parliament. Matters remained in this position till Monday last; when a statement was made that the Direct Northern had seen it to be their interest to coalesce with the Cambridge and Lincoln. What was the consequence? Where two parties out of three, possessing great influence, and having great command of capital, coalesced against the third, the chances were that these two combined companies would be in an infinitely better position than the third. Now all this was well known to parties on the Stock Exchange on Monday. Up to Monday the proportion of the value in shares in the three schemes remained unaltered; but on Tuesday, the coalition being known, those who knew it naturally sold out of the London and York scheme, and bought into the Cambridge and Lincoln and Direct Northern combined scheme. The consequence was, that the shares in the latter necessarily went up, and those of the London and York went down in value. Could any thing be more natural than this? Of course the shares of the combined companies rose in value, but not because the decision of the Board of Trade was known, or because of the decision itself. He would venture to say, that if the parties who had sold their shares were put upon their oath, they would state that they sold them not from knowledge of the opinion of the Board of Trade, but from a moral conviction that the York and London Company would be defeated in consequence of the coalition between the Direct Northern and the Cambridge and Lincoln Companies. He (the Earl of Dalhousie) would repeat that there had not been on the part of any individual Member of the Railway Board any communication
774
with respect to the London and York scheme, or any other scheme, until the determination of the Railway Board was published in the Gazette; and he would defy any persons to say that they had acted in their dealings with shares in these companies from any knowledge gathered as to what would be the decision of the Board previous to such publication.
Lord Broughamhad not the slightest hesitation in stating that the explanation of his noble Friend was, to a certain degree, upon a most important matter, exceedingly satisfactory. He was bound in candour to admit that his (Lord Brougham's) informant, who was one of the most experienced members of the Stock Exchange, was wholly ignorant of the very important fact which the noble Earl had just announced; namely, the coalition of the Cambridge and Lincoln and Direct Northern Companies. No doubt that was a most important fact, and would have reduced the value of the shares of the London and York Company without any decision of the Board. He would consent to withdraw his Motion if the noble Earl would give the price of the shares at the periods of the day to which he (Lord Brougham) had already referred. Lord Brougham then insisted on the right of every Peer to demand information from a Minister, and that Lord Dalhousie ought not to take credit for giving it.
The Earl of Dalhousieadmitted in the fullest manner, that it was the unquestionable right of any noble Lord to demand from a servant of the Crown whatever information he could with propriety give respecting the public duties appertaining to his department; and he (the Earl of Dalhousie) was at all times ready to afford that information; but he apprehended it was not the duty of a servant of the Crown to give that information which he had not got. If the noble and learned Lord had been behind the curtain as much as he (the Earl of Dalhousie) had, in matters of this nature, the noble Lord would have found that railway politics were extremely intricate matters.
Lord Broughamsaid, that what the noble Earl had just said, and every day's experience, showed how infinitely inconvenient and injurious it was to the public interest that there should exist in this country any secret tribunal such as this Railway Board.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The Earl of Devonpresented a petition from the Gloucester Canal Company, complaining of the practice of railway companies charging very low for the carriage of goods, and compensating themselves by imposing very high charges on passengers. The noble Earl also presented a petition from Exeter, complaining of the law which prevents the arrest for debts below 20 l.
Lord Cottenhamdisclaimed the honour of being the author of the Bill which had received the sanction of Parliament. His proposition was of a different character. He had proposed the abolition of imprisonment for debt; but he had proposed also that means should be provided for getting at the property of debtors. His object was to frame a machinery by which the creditor should have a right to call his debtor before the proper tribunal, to ascertain what property he possessed.

JEWISH DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
On the Order of the Day being moved for going into Committee,
The Marquess of Lansdowneobserved, that the Bill did not extend to Scotland and Ireland. He apprehended that that arose from there being no necessity for so extending the measure, in consequence of Jews being already admissible there to the offices to which it was proposed to admit them in England; but he should like to hear that fact stated upon authority.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the provisions of the Bill were unnecessary as regarded Scotland; and with respect to Ireland his impression was the same; but if any necessity should appear for extending the measure to that country, he should do so with much pleasure.
After a few words from Lord Campbell, the Bill went through Committee.

COMPANIES CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
The Earl of Dalhousiemoved the second reading of these Bills.
Lord Monteaglecalled the attention of the House to the extent of private business before them. If there had been a difficulty in this respect last Session, it promised to be greater now. He would not venture to make any suggestion as to the course to be taken; but if their Lordships intended to make any new rule upon the subject, the sooner they did so the better.
776
The noble Lord, in reference to something which had before fallen from him relative to the Board of Trade, said he admitted the zeal and ability with which the railway duties of that Department had been performed.
Bills read 2a.
House adjourned.