§ EARL GRANVILLErose to move the Second Reading of the Railways Bill. The noble Earl said that a question had arisen as to how far the expenditure required for the completion of railways had occasioned the recent commercial distress; but, without going into that question, he thought there could be no doubt that when commercial distress had set in, and when there was a scarcity of money, the competition of rival companies in the money market was likely to aggravate very considerably any pressure that might exist. The object of this Bill was to enable railway companies, on application to the Railway Commissioners, to obtain a warrant empowering them to extend the time for completing their works for two years. The Bill also provided that, in assessing compensation to the owners of land, regard should be had to any loss which they might sustain in consequence of such delay; and that new companies should not commence their works without the consent of three-fifths of the shareholders.
LORD STANLEYconsidered that the object proposed to be attained by this Bill was a good one—that object being that, where the expenditure of a very large amount of capital upon railway works had been sanctioned by the carelessness of Parliament, the period for such expenditure might be spread over a considerable 1124 period of time. But though he approved the principle of the Bill, he entertained some objections to the mode in which it was proposed to carry it into effect. Many noble Lords might be aware that, during the construction of a railway, not only were persons possessing property in the vicinity of the works subjected to great annoyance and inconvenience, but a most demoralising influence was produced upon the neighbouring population; and he considered that the longer the time they allowed for the completion of railway works, the greater would be that annoyance to landlords, and the more serious the demoralisation of the labourers. In case of the construction of a railway in an agricultural district, the plan of cultivation to be adopted must depend in a great measure on the completion of the works; and if the completion of railways was to be deferred for a period of three, or four, or five years, an almost entire stop must be put to the progress of agricultural improvement during that period in many districts. It appeared to him that the object contemplated by the Government might be very generally effected if they gave to the Railway Board the power, not of extending the whole period during which the works should be in progress, but of suspending, for a given period, the time at which the works should be commenced. He considered that, instead of allowing the railway companies additional time for the completion of their lines, the Railway Board should be empowered to say to the proprietors and occupiers of land, "You shall be secure from any interruption for the next two years, for, until the expiration of that time, the powers conferred by Parliament on such a railway company shall not be exercised." He (Lord Stanley) must say that he thought, in the case of railway companies who had obtained Acts of Parliament, but who had not yet entered into contracts for any part of their works, the restrictions imposed by this Bill were not quite so stringent as had been represented. The Bill did not require the consent of three-fifths of the shareholders in any company before the works were commenced, but only the consent of three-fifths of the whole number of shareholders who sent answers to the applications for their consent; so that a company might be enabled to go on with its works, though only one-fifth of the whole number of shareholders might give their assent to such a course. He thought it would be much better to require that be- 1125 fore airy new railway was commenced, the consent, not of three-fifths of the proprietors who sent answers, but of a majority of the shareholders, should be obtained.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEconcurred in the suggestions of the noble Lord, more especially in that relating to the expediency of having the consent of a majority of the shareholders in the case alluded to. He regretted to hear something like a degree of doubt thrown out as to whether the extent of railway speculation had or had not contributed to the commercial pressure, for he had thought it had been admitted, almost universally, that the enormous amount of capital invested in railways had been one of the most prominent causes of that pressure. It appeared to him that what they were now doing by the present Bill was shutting the stable door after the steed had gone. He gave notice that at a future opportunity he would, unless the subject was taken up by some other Peer, introduce, with a view of correcting some of the evils consequent on mismanagement in railway affairs, a Bill to provide for the effectual audit of railway accounts, giving to a certain proportion of the shareholders in any company, when the accounts were submitted to them, a right to apply to the Railway Commissioners for the appointment of an authoritative and impartial auditor.
§ EARL GRANVILLEassured the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) that his suggestions would be taken into consideration.
§ Bill read 2a.
§ House adjourned.