The EARL of GRANVILLE, in moving the resumption of the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Railways Abandonment Bill, stated that he had received no additional information since yesterday, calculated to induce them to view the measure more favourably than they had previously done; but he still was of opinion that it would be advantageous to pass the Bill. As the law at present stood, the shareholders in railway companies could not be proceeded against by landowners otherwise than in the Court of Chancery. A suit of that nature, he understood, would occupy about two years; and after it was over, the landlord might find, and probably would find, that the only property which the company possessed was a certain ditch that they had cut through his lawn. Besides that, the wealthy shareholders found it very hard upon them to pay for injuries inflicted through a pertinacious prosecution of the project by men who had no property. The measure which he recommended to the acceptance of their Lordships would have the effect of relieving landlords from the necessity of proceeding in the Court of Chancery for a specific performance of contract; and it 1024 would protect one class of shareholders against another. Doubtless there was a highly respectable and intelligent class of men, the Parliamentary agents, who would lose rather than gain by the provisions of the Bill. The money, however, that would cease to go into their pockets would be all for the benefit of the shareholders in companies.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNobjected to the Bill, on the ground that it would tend to abrogate the authority of their Lordships, and would devolve upon the Railway Commissioners greater powers than were ever exercised by their Lordships, or any Committee of either House of Parliament. He would not occupy their time by going into the clauses of the Bill; but merely state this, that one of the principal reasons for passing this Bill had been to avoid the great expense individual companies had to undergo by coming before Parliament; but he wanted to see how that expense was to be avoided. If the Railway Commissioners were to sit and listen to evidence, and hear the speeches of counsel, then no doubt they would arrive at as proper a decision as a Committee of their Lordships' House; but he did not see how the expense would be avoided. And if the Railway Commissioners were to allow a company to be dissolved on the mere statement of the parties without inquiry, that would be an objectionable mode of proceeding.
§ LORD REDESDALEthought that they could not effectually legislate on the subject without having more time to consider it.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEwas in favour of the principle of the Bill, but did not think they could do justice to that principle by carrying it through this Session.
The EARL of GRANVILLEsaid, that after the statements which had been made by his noble Friends opposite, he would not press the Bill.
§ On Question, that the word "now" stand part of the original Motion,
§ Resolved in the Affirmative.
§ Bill read 2a