§ LORD LYNDHURSTthen called their Lordships' attention to the order which had been made previously to the Easter recess for the appointment of a Select Committee of Inquiry into the dispute between the North-Western and the London and Birmingham Railway Companies relative to the Oxford and Birmingham line. He hoped that the matter would not be allowed to drop, but that the order which had been made would be acted upon without any further day.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was not petition, he should say that their Lordships present on the occasion when this matter was discussed, or he should certainly have opposed the appointment of a Committee for such a purpose. Unless their Lordships were prepared to grant a remedy, they should not have granted this Committee. It was admitted, that a Bill called Oxford and Birmingham Railway Bill was passed last Session, under which 946 powers were given to the directors to be appointed under it (provided a certain number of shareholders in the company were agreeable to the same) to sell their line to the Great Western Company.
§ LORD LYNDHURSTapprehended that his noble Friend was irregular. An order had been made for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the abuses complained of; but it was agreed to postpone the inquiry until certain proceedings in the Court of Chancery, which might render the inquiry unnecessary, were disposed of. As the order had been already granted, the only course which remained open for his noble Friend, if he objected to the inquiry, was to give notice of his intention to move on a future day that the order for the Committee be discharged.
§ LORD REDESDALEcertainly intended to make such a Motion. He considered the order for this Committee of Inquiry to be the sanctioning of the most dangerous principle that was ever introduced in the legislation of that House, for it would give no securities to parties that had obtained Acts of Parliament. It would enable Parliament, after they had passed a private Bill, to deliberate whether it would not be expedient for them to put the same Act aside as if it had never been passed.
The LORD CHANCELLORthought it necessary to state to their Lordships how the matter stood. The question before the Court of Chancery had been previously sent before and decided on by the Vice-Chancellor of England. It was to decide who were now in law to be considered the legal directors of the Oxford and Birmingham Railway Company; whether certain persons were to be considered the legal directors of that company, or certain other persons were to be considered as such. Now, that being the question pending before him (the Lord Chancellor), how far it might be connected with other transactions between other railway companies he had no means of forming an opinion; but if it were alleged to be portion of them in the petition, he should say that their Lordships would not be acting wisely in sending the matter for inquiry before the Committee, whilst the question "Who are the directors?" was pending in a court of law. Their Lordships should be very well able to judge beforehand that the matters were totally disconnected. But as the case before him would, in all probability, be disposed of before the end of the week, their 947 Lordships would soon have a better opportunity of judging. The questions might be totally and entirely distinct; but he thought their Lordships would do well to be quite sure of it before they engaged in any inquiry.
§ LORD LYNDHURSTcontended that the case before the Court of Chancery, arising as it did out of the question, whether four directors should have gone out of office on the 27th of February, had nothing to do with the inquiry before their Lordships. However, if it were their Lordships' pleasure that it should stand over until his noble and learned Friend had become satisfied upon the subject, he (Lord Lyndhurst) would not object.