LORD BROUGHAMpresented a petition from Charles Alexander Saunders, which he had been requested by that gentleman to present in consequence of some observations which had fallen from him in the course of his speech the other night 1248 on railway audits. He had mentioned the name of Mr. Saunders, because his name had been prominently brought forward at a public meeting. Mr. Saunders gave a different statement of the transaction to which he (Lord Brougham) had referred, in two important particulars. Mr. Saunders stated that he never was a servant of the South Devon Company; and he (Lord Brougham) had never said that he was so. He had said that Mr. Saunders was the secretary of the Great Western Company. The question turned, not on the shares of the Great Western, but on the shares of the South Devon Company. The only point on which he had any doubt in his statement was, whether he was altogether justified in declaring that the South Devon was an affiliated branch—though he did not use that exact phrase—of the Great Western Company. The Great Western was only connected with the South Devon by holding a great number of its shares, and exercising thereby a preponderating influence over it; and that was the mode in which one company often exercised an influence over another, to the great injury and detriment of the public. The Great Western had purchased a large number of shares of the South Devon, and had paid up the calls upon thorn. Mr. Saunders had also purchased on his own account many shares, but had not paid up the calls. He had purchased what were called "preference shares," for which there was a guarantee of 6 per cent for ten years. The South Devon ceased to pay that interest at the end of the first year, and, as they had broken its bargain with him, Mr. Saunders did not feel called upon to keep his covenant with them. It was not the suggestion of Mr. Saunders, but it was a suggestion made to him in the other House of Parliament by a gentleman who was a Privy Councillor, that the whole transaction was illegal. He took the opinion of an eminent counsel at the Chancery bar, and also at the common law bar, upon the suggestion, and they gave him such strong opinions on the point, that he determined to resist the payment of his calls; and the matter was now sub judice. He (Lord Brougham) had also said, on the authority of Mr. Hutton, that Mr. Saunders had a salary of 3,000l. a year. It turned out that he had only a salary of 2,000l. a year. Such were the statements of the petition; and, as he had been the party to bring forward the charges against that gentleman in his place in Parliament, he thought 1249 it only right that he should give Mr. Saunders's correction of them from the same place. He had been informed by several noble Lords, who had long known Mr. Saunders, that he was a most respectable person, and that anything he said was deserving of credit.
§ LORD LYNDHURSTbore testimony to the honourable character of Mr. Saunders, and, corroborating the observations which had fallen from Lord Brougham, proceeded to explain the reasons which had induced Mr. Saunders to purchase these preference shares of the South Devon Company. Mr. Saunders had submitted all his proceedings in resisting the payment of the calls on those shares to the directors of the Great Western Company, and those proceedings had met with their general approbation.
LORD BROUGHAMobserved, that though he had mentioned the name of Mr. Saunders, he had not mentioned the name of the solicitor who had got 190,000l. of the money of the Great Western Company. He had said that he was a member of a respectable firm, for which he had himself had done business; and a Mr. Hunt, whose name he had not even mentioned, had applied to him personally to state that he was not the party implicated. Certainly Mr. Hunt was not.
§ The DUKE of CLEVELANDmade some remarks on the conduct of Mr. Saunders towards the South Devon Company. That individual might be able to defend his conduct in a legal point of view, but he could not defend his honesty. The petition which he had just presented would do him more harm than good.
LORDBROUGHAMsaid, he thought the noble Duke was rather hard upon Mr. Saunders. If the noble Duke had proposed to buy a farm, and found there was a bad title, would be not try to get out of his bargain?
§ THE DUKE of BEAUFORTsaid, that he had been for many years acquainted with Mr. Saunders, who was a man of high honour and character. Some years ago the directors of the Great Western had presented him with a large sum of money and a piece of plate in return for his valuable services to that company.
§ EARL GRANVILLEonly knew the facts of this case from a communication made to him that morning by a noble Lord, whose statement coincided entirely with that contained in the petition of Mr. Saunders. If that statement were true, no blame could attach to that gentleman. The 1250 first doubt of the legality of the preference shares was suggested to him by Sir E. Ryan, whilst in conversation beneath the gallery in the House of Commons with Mr. Russell, the chairman of the Great Western. He had himself seen Sir Edward Ryan that morning, and Sir Edward informed him that he perfectly recollected the conversation in question.