Lords Sitting of 23 June 1863

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Borrowing Powers of Railway Companies, appointed (List of the Committee).
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Mutiny (East India) Act Repeal* (No. 153); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (No. 154).
Second Reading—Innkeepers' Liability * (No. 142); Officers of Royal Naval Reserve(No. 131); Inland Revenue* (No. 128); Militia Pay*.
Select Committee—Report—Telegraphs Bill * [Report No. 155, Bill 156].
Committee—Security from Violence * (No. 103 and 157).
Report—Thames Embankment (North Side)* (No. 151).
Third Reading—London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance * (No. 104), and passed.

ITALY—CASE OF MR. BISHOP.

  EXPLANATOIN.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he wished to draw the attention of his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary to a statement which be made the other evening in reference to the imprisonment of Mr. Bishop, His noble Friend had informed their Lordships upon a former occasion that the Government at Turin would, on the first fitting occasion, recommend the King to grant an absolute pardon to Mr. Bishop; but the other evening his noble Friend, commenting on some observations he (the Marquess of Normanby) had addressed to their Lordships, had explained "the first fitting occasion" as meaning when brigandage should have been put down in the Southern Italian States and Italy pacified. Such an interpretation, he contended, was not the fair and natural meaning of the expression; and the noble Earl's interpretation had materially damped the hopes which the friends of Mr. Bishop had previously entertained with respect to his release from prison; and he must add that the despatch of Count Pasolini did not seem to contemplate that any such event as the complete pacification of Italy must take place before the liberation of Mr. Bishop was effected. He wished to ascertain from his noble Friend whether he had received any communication which had led to the alteration of the opinions to which he had, in the first instance, given expression on the subject.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he had received no communication from Turin as to the sense in which these words were to be

  1289
  understood. The reason he gave that explanation the other evening was that his noble Friend seemed to suppose the "fitting occasion" for pardoning Mr. Bishop would arise in some approaching birthday or national festival; he (Earl Russell), however, suggested that it was possible the Government at Turin might think it was not expedient to set Mr. Bishop at liberty while the Southern Italian States were in their present disturbed condition, and bands of brigands continued to cross into them from the Roman States. He might add, that as it had been stated that Mr. Bishop was in a very bad state of health, he had requested our Minister at Turin to send a person to Alexandria to ascertain the state of Mr. Bishop's health, and that he was happy to say it was found to be good.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, the noble Earl must be aware that he had him self passed upon Mr. Bishop a sort of sentence of continual imprisonment, by stating in that House that be considered that the "fitting time" for Mr. Bishop to be released would be when brigandage was suppressed in Italy and the country pacified. Now, he (the Earl of Hardwicke) did not believe that in his lifetime brigandage would be suppressed in that country; and he felt sure, therefore, that the inadvertent expression which had fallen from the noble Earl would be used against himself as a sort of sentence on Mr. Bishop. He was quite sure that it was an inadvertent expression, and he hoped the noble Earl would take this opportunity of denying strongly that he had any intention to suggest the imprisonment of Mr. Bishop for the whole time of his sentence.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he did not mean that his expressions on the occasion referred to should receive so extensive an interpretation as had been put upon them. He did not mean that Mr. Bishop ought not to be pardoned until brigandage was totally suppressed; but that the country could hardly be considered in a state of pacification until brigandage was so far suppressed that it no longer constituted a sort of civil war.

CESSION OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS.
THE EARL OF DERBYasked whether there was any truth in the statement which appeared in the newspapers that day, to the effect that Sir Henry Storks had published a Proclamation announcing the cession
1290
of the Ionian Islands to the Kingdom of Greece.
EARL RUSSELLsaid, he could not believe that such a Proclamation had been issued. The arrangement which had been made upon that subject was, that a new Parliament should be summoned in the Ionian Islands, and that the question of the cession of the Islands to Greece should be submitted to them for their approval.
THE EARL OF DERBYgave notice that he would bring that subject under the consideration of their Lordships on Thursday next, when the noble Earl would have an opportunity of explaining the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEwarned the noble Earl opposite to be very cautious how he made statements founded upon what appeared in the papers. Other events were said to have occurred within the last two or three months for which there was not the smallest possible foundation, and there was strong reason for believing that no such Proclamation had been issued.

BRAZIL—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I rise, my Lords, to make a personal explanation, to which I am sure your Lordships will be disposed to listen. I have received a letter from Mr. Christie desiring me to explain some misapprehension, as he believes, contained in the speech I delivered on Friday last, and contradicting some of the statements which I made upon that occasion. Now, my Lords, I am always ready, if I fall into a mistake, to rectify it as soon as possible; and the best course perhaps I can now pursue is at once to read Mr Christie's letter. It is as follows:—
"Hillingdon, Uxbridge, June 21, 1863.
"My Lord,—I am sure that your Lordship has not wished to make mis-statements in the House of Lords about a public servant, of whose conduct, when he served under you as Minister in the River Plate, you expressed high approval, and in whose conciliatory character you had so much confidence in 1858 as to wish him to prolong his stay there for purposes of conciliation; and in the belief that you will desire to correct any such mis-statements as publicly as they have been made, I beg to call your Lordship's attention to some passages in the report in The Times of your speech in the House of Lords on the 19th.
"I am, of course, aware that it is possible that the report may not always be correct:—
"1. You are reported to say that papers were sent to you about my difference with General Webb, which you suppose were sent by me as they were in my defence. I have sent you no papers, and am not aware of any such papers, beyond a

1291
statement which I published with Lord Russell's permission, and which appeared in The Times.
"2. You are reported to say that I was not on good terms with the Brazilian Minister or with colleagues of mine; and you were good enough to add, as reported, 'It may not be his fault, but certainly it is a very great misfortune not only to him, but to his Sovereign.' I am happy to be able to assure you that I was on good terms with the Brazilian Minister and with the Brazilian Government generally, and was also on good terms with all my colleagues, except General Webb, and in free confidential communication with some of them on this grave public question. If you are not satisfied with my assurance on this point, which is a very important one, you can refer to Lord Russell. I am sure that it could only have been from inadvertence that Lord Russell failed to correct this particular mis-statement in answering you.
"3. You are reported to say that I appear to have had no personal communications with the Brazilian Minister until just before I was going to make reprisals. This is a mistake; though it is true, that owing to the habits and wishes of the Brazilian Government, more business is done at Rio by note writing, and less in conversation, than in European Courts. The published papers mention seven interviews between May and September before the formal demands of satisfaction were made, and five in December before the reprisals were resorted to. There would be other interviews not mentioned in the papers, and at page 94 I make a general reference to verbal representations.
"In the public relation in which I am to Earl Russell, I think it right to furnish him with a copy of this letter to your Lordship.—I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient servant,
"W. D. CHRISTIE.
"The Earl of Malmesbury, G.C.B."
Well, my Lords, with respect to the first part of that letter, in which Mr. Christie refers to transactions which took place in the year 1858 when I had the honour of being at the head of the Foreign Office, I have no hesitation in saying that I had no reason to be dissatisfied with anything that Mr. Christie did at that time. On the contrary, he appeared to me to do his duty as well as any other of Her Majesty's Ministers in foreign countries. But, at the same time, I am not sure that I urged him against his will to remain at his post; and I do not recollect, and I can find no indication in my notes, that there was at the time any difficulty in the River Plate which it required any measure of particular conciliation to arrange. I remember that Mr. Christie came home in the spring of 1859, and was anxious for promotion to another Court; but I was unable to comply with his request; and a few weeks afterwards my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Derby) went out of office, and I ceased to be Foreign Minister. I have nothing to
1292
say against Mr. Christie generally, and I am perfectly ready to state that he did his duty as well as anybody else when I was Foreign Secretary; but I have no recollection of pressing him, on account of his conciliatory disposition, to remain at his post. With respect to the papers in reference to his difference with General Webb, which he says were not forwarded by him, I have to state that they were sent to me anonymously, and I supposed that they came from him. I may add that I am the last man who would support the conduct of General Webb, as far as it can be ascertained from these papers. With regard to my statement that he was not on good terms with the Brazilian Minister and with some of his colleagues, I, of course, accept his statement. But, in justice to myself, I must observe that the authority upon which I made that statement was so strong, and apparently so much above suspicion, that I believe any one in my position would be prepared to accept it; and I am supported in that opinion by a statement made in another place by Mr. Layard, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who said that "Mr. Christie had a difference with only two of his colleagues." It appears, therefore, that it was believed at the Foreign Office that Mr. Christie had had differences with two of his colleagues; and I believe the noble Earl will not deny that he had some serious disputes and quarrels with some gentlemen attached to his mission. Those were the grounds on which I made my statement. I am perfectly ready to admit that in reading over the blue-book I ought to have paid attention to the fact that Mr. Christie appears to have had several personal conversations with the Brazilian Minister before the conversation to which I alluded. But your Lordships will see on looking over the blue-book that those conversations are marked out only by allusions and references to, and are not given in extenso; and that must be my excuse for my oversight. But all this does not appear to me to diminish or to alter in any way the gravamen of the charge which I made against Mr. Christie the other evening. The gravamen of that charge was, that after Mr. Christie had received from the noble Earl opposite permission to accept arbitration if it was offered, he did not directly at any interview, or indirectly through any third person, allow the Brazilian Minister to know that that loop-hole had been given for the settlement of the

1293
misunderstanding. The noble Earl excuses Mr. Christie by saying that he followed his instructions in that matter. So far he did, because the noble Earl did not expressly instruct him to make a communication to the Brazilian Government upon the subject. But I cannot help thinking that the excuse thus offered by the noble Earl is the result of his generosity rather than of his impartial judgment.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he must rise to order. The noble Earl had read a letter from Mr. Christie and had made observations upon it. He must put it to their Lordships whether, when the hour of commencing the ordinary debates was passed, the noble Earl ought to go into other points.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I think it is rather discourteous of the noble Earl to interrupt me in a personal explanation; and this is, I believe, the first time I have offered such an explanation to your Lordships.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he only wished that the statement of the noble Earl should be confined to a personal explanation. But the noble Earl seemed to him to be making a new speech attacking Mr. Christie upon other points.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that he was only explaining the meaning of what he had said the other evening, and stating the gravamen of the charge he then made against Mr. Christie.
THE MARQUESS OF SLIGOsaid, he had unfortunately not heard the whole of the noble Earl's speech on Friday night, or he should have at once stated, from his own personal observation, that Mr. Christie was on good terms with the greater part of his colleagues. In fact, General Webb, he believed, was the only exception; and neither side of the House was inclined, he thought, to approve that gentleman's proceedings. When he was in Rio Janeiro he frequently met members of the corps diplomatique in Mr. Christie's company The English residents in Brazil, too, felt themselves perfectly safe in Mr. Christie's hands, and were grateful to him for the manner in which he discharged the duties of his mission.
EARL RUSSELL: I wish to state, my Lords, that though there was some small difference between Mr. Christie and some of his colleagues soon after his arrival in Rio, it was on a very trifling matter, was soon dispelled, and did not at all affect his personal relations with them.

OFFICERS OF ROYAL NAVY RESERVE BILL—(No. 131.)—SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Somerset.)
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEthought the Bill a harmless one. He must, however, observe that the first clause was very large, and tool; in almost every one engaged in a seafaring life, except seamen-gunners. As captain of a yacht which he navigated himself, he begged to ask the noble Duke what situation he would give him? If he could creep hack into the navy under this Bill, he would say it was one of the best measures ever introduced. He did not see how it was possible to refuse him a lieutenancy under the first clause, and therefore he should offer no opposition to the Bill.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHhoped the noble Duke would not forget to insert in the Bill in Committee the officers of the late Indian navy.
Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

WEST HARTLEPOOL HARBOUR AND RAILWAY BILL.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORErose to call the attention of the House to the Special Report and Evidence upon the West Hartlepool Harbour and Railway Bill; and to move—
1. That the Report and Evidence be referred to Her Majesty's Attorney General, with Directions to inquire into the alleged illegal Conduct of the late Directors and Auditors of the Company, and to institute a Prosecution against such Persons as, in his Opinion, can he convicted of illegal or fraudulent Conduct:
2. That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report as to what legislative Measures are desirable for the Purpose of restraining Directors of Railway Companies from exceeding the Limits of the borrowing Powers fixed by their Act of Parliament, and from expending the Funds of Companies for Purposes foreign to their Undertakings and unauthorized by the Legislature.
It was not often their Lordships were troubled with a discussion of matters connected with private Bills, and he regretted very much that it had fallen to his lot to be obliged to bring a subject of this kind under their consideration; but, as Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill had been referred, he felt he should not be doing his duty if he did not call

1295
the attention of the House to some of the facts disclosed by the evidence taken before the Select Committee. The West Hartlepool Railway Company was formed in 1852, by the amalgamation of two small companies—the Hartlepool Dock Company and the Stockton and Hartlepool Company; and these two companies were afterwards amalgamated with the Clarence Railway Company. The amount of the Company's capital was originally £1,500,000 in round numbers, the Clarence Company holding preference shares in the amalgamated company. The Company appeared to have been badly managed from the beginning; and in the years 1857 and 1861 the Company again came before Parliament and obtained further powers. The capital was increased to £2,100,000, and the extreme limit of the borrowing powers was £700,000, or one-third of the total capital. He had first to bring under the notice of the House the conduct of the Directors in exceeding their borrowing powers. The amount of capital actually raised was not one-half of the total share capital, and, instead of the limit of the borrowing powers being adhered to, the enormous sum of £2,700,000 had been borrowed by the Company, partly upon bonds and partly upon debenture stock. Now, even supposing that they had power to borrow to the extent of one third of their authorized capital, they had exceeded that power to an enormous amount. But, looking at their Act, it was doubtful whether even the borrowing power conferred upon them could be legally exercised, for they were restricted from exercising these powers at all until one-half of their share capital was subscribed and paid up; and as that was never done, the Company had no legal power to borrow at all. However, £350,000 was the full amount of the power, and yet they borrowed £2,700,000. He would pass over the other instances of mismanagement detailed in the Report, for though those instances were of a startling, yet they were not of a criminal nature. But there was one matter which he thought of a most serious nature. It appeared in evidence that from 1853 to 1861 the Directors of the Company never presented the shareholders with a true statement of their affairs, and that during this period the annual accounts, which were printed and circulated under the authority of the Board, concealed and falsified the true
1296
state of their affairs. Setting aside the public injury inflicted, he apprehended that such conduct as this was a breach of the criminal law, and he had a strong opinion, that as this matter had been brought under the notice of the House, they should take care, that if the parties were guilty, punishment should be inflicted upon them. It appeared that as early as 1858 one shareholder had misgivings as to the state of the Company, and commenced proceedings with a view to compel the Directors to cease the borrowing of money in excess of their powers. For a long time he failed in producing any effect; but in 1859 a Committee of investigation was appointed, and Mr. Sturge was appointed to conduct the inquiry. But he (the Earl of Donoughmore) was astonished to find that he failed to discover the facts, although he had an opportunity of examining the books. For some time afterwards no steps were taken; but afterwards some of the larger shareholders became alarmed, being convinced that the affairs of the Company were in a very alarming condition, filed a Bill in Chancery, obtained the appointment of a receiver, displaced the Directors, and appointed another Board; and it was this second Board that had come to Parliament for the reconstruction of the Company with the Bill referred to the Committee over which he had presided. He had been asked why the Committee did not state in the Report their reasons for throwing out the Bill. Now he thought the facts stated were themselves sufficient reasons for the decision come to. In the first place, the Bill proposed, among other things, to raise a million of money for the purpose of paying off the old shareholders and other debts which were primary charges upon the concern. That Bill was opposed by creditors, and on that opposition the Bill failed. He thought that the case of the creditors was unanswerable, and that the Committee were clearly right in throwing out the Bill. When, however, the Committee re-assembled after Whitsuntide, they were informed by the opponents of the Bill that they had come to an agreement with the promoters, and were anxious now that with certain modifications the Bill should pass. Practically then the Bill was unopposed; but even then he thought that it should not be allowed to pass. The old Clarence shareholders had stood as five to three in the governing body, and had used their majority by keeping in office for eight years

1297
the men who had brought the Company to their present position. Now, according to the arrangement come to, these were the only parties whose rights were to be completely guarded, and who were to escape scot-free. They were to receive their full demand, they were to be paid off in full, and for this purpose this million of money was to be found. On another ground he felt that the Bill ought not to pass, for in his opinion a Committee of five Peers had no right to judge so important a question as this without laying the matter before the House. This had ceased to be a question of re-arrangement of capital. This was a case in which fraud and illegality were imputed, it was a case for which there existed no precedent; and he had felt, that if the Bill passed at all, it should pass on public grounds, and not as the act of a Committee of five Peers appointed to treat a mere private question. He quite admitted, that if the Bill did not pass, great loss, and even ruin, would follow to innocent parties. But, on the other hand, it would be unwise to allow the directors of public companies who had been guilty of gross mismanagement to feel that they had nothing to do but come before Parliament and make an appeal ad misericordiam in order to undo all the fraudulent Acts they had done in the past, and thus encourage others to pursue the same course. The creditors of the Company were alone worthy of relief. He had no sympathy with the shareholders, for it was their business to have looked after their own concerns; and if they had experienced a heavy loss, it was their own fault. The creditors stood in a different position. They had no power to interfere in the affairs of the Company, and might have a case with which to come before Parliament. But he entreated their Lordships not even to give relief to the creditors until the persons who were responsible for this mismanagement were brought to punishment. When that was done, he should not object to consider what further steps should be taken, and therefore he should not offer any opposition to the Motion of which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford) had given notice. He had no personal interest in, or acquaintance with, this subject, beyond what had come to his knowledge during the progress of the inquiry, but he brought it forward in accordance with what he felt to be a public duty. Another noble Lord (the Earl of Airlie) proposed, that if a Committee were appointed, it should inquire
1298
into the means of preventing the use of borrowing powers before the prescribed portions of capital had been raised. He thought that addition to the terms of his own proposition would be useful, and he should assent to it. With respect to the evidence before the Committee, he admitted that it was upon one side only; but that could not be avoided. The question which the Committee had to consider was, whether the Bill should pass or not, and the evidence inculpating the Directors came out in the course of the inquiry. They felt that it was right that the late chairman of the Company, Mr. Ward Jackson, should have an opportunity of defending himself by offering an explanation, and therefore he (the Earl of Donoughmore) stated publicly that it was their intention to report the facts to the House; and when Mr. Ward Jackson applied by letter, he was informed, that if he would attend the Committee at its next meeting, they would hear any statement he might desire to make. Mr. Ward Jackson did attend, and proposed that the Committee should hear evidence on his behalf; but they felt they could not do that, as they had no powers to act in the nature of a grand jury to try Mr. Ward Jackson's conduct. A noble Lord had given notice of a Motion to the effect that Mr. Ward Jackson be heard upon oath before the Committee; but even if that Motion could be made, it was doubtful what object would be gained by it. Mr. Ward Jackson presented a Petition, stating that he was not guilty: but if there was no ground for the charges, the Attorney General would not prosecute him; and even if he were prosecuted, he would have the benefit of a trial by a jury. He begged it to be understood that he did not desire that any prosecution should be instituted; but very grave charges having been made, he thought it only right that they should be inquired into. If those charges were proved, he wished the guilty parties to be punished, and he thought their Lordships would agree with him that they ought to be punished. He should, in the first instance, move the first Resolution of which he had given notice; and if that should be agreed to by the House, he would then propose the second Resolution. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
"That the Special Report and Evidence upon the West Hartlepool Harbour and Railway Bill be referred to Her Majesty's Attorney General, with Directions to inquire into the alleged illegal Conduct of the late Directors and Auditors of the Company, and to institute a Prosecution against

1299
such Persons as, in his Opinion, can be convicted of illegal or fraudulent Conduct."
THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, that as a Member of the Committee, he felt bound to explain that he bad not been able to agree with the majority in their decision to reject the Bill, but he had no hesitation in endorsing the remainder of the Report. The statements in the Report as to the previous history of the West Hartlepool Railway Company gave, he believed, a fair account of the previous career of the Company, and the statements as to the illegal conduct of the Directors were fully borne out by the evidence. He therefore fully concurred in the suggestion embodied in the Motion. He should wish, however, to give his reasons for thinking that a Bill should have been allowed to pass. He felt, that under the peculiar circumstances, and all parties interested being agreed, the arrangement that was proposed was as fair a compromise as could be devised to meet the interests alike of the shareholders, preference shareholders, and bondholders, who were all interested in avoiding the enormous expenses that would be consequent upon litigation. He admitted that it might establish a bad precedent; but he could not forget that a large number of unfortunate persons had invested their money in the undertaking, both shareholders and bondholders, who were quite innocent of participation in any illegality or mismanagement. His noble Friend said that the shareholders must bear the consequences of allowing such Directors to continue in office; but it must be remembered that the shareholders were kept in ignorance of the real state of affairs. The present Board of Directors represented the ill-treated shareholders and bondholders, and they ought not to suffer for the faults of their predecessors; and their Lordships should remember that to the poorer shareholders half a loaf was better than no bread. He therefore thought the Bill should be allowed to pass.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I wish to explain to your Lordships the course which I think Her Majesty's Government ought to adopt, and which, on my advice, they are prepared to adopt, in this case. I must, however, speak with some reserve on this matter, because I know not whether in its civil aspect it may not possibly come before me in another place. I shall, therefore, speak only of the criminal aspect of the case, and entirely on
1300
the hypothesis that the statements in this Report are founded in fact. If these statements are so founded, I think I am warranted in saying that there is grave ground for believing that a very great public fraud and an indictable offence of a most serious character has been committed. Under the circumstances, whore there is an offence, which in its consequences are so important to the community, I hold it to be the duty of the Government to make an immediate inquiry into the circumstances; and if it finds reason to believe that an indictment will lie, and can be sustained, to take the duty of prosecuting on itself without any delay or direction. The Government, therefore, will immediately direct the solicitors of the Treasury to make the most full investigation into this subject, and to lay all the papers before the Attorney General, with directions to examine whether an indictable offence has been committed, and, if so, to proceed at once against the offenders. It is scarcely possible, having regard to the great number of public companies and the unfortunately imperfect state of the law, which provides no effectual audit, and no means for complete publicity with any security of having a truthful report—it is scarcely possible under these circumstances to imagine any case that is of more importance to the community than the present. I have taken the liberty of addressing you before the noble Baron (Lord Ravensworth) who has an Amendment on the paper, and who rose with me, because I must be permitted to say, that notwithstanding the Amendment of the noble Baron, the Government will persevere in the course I have indicated; and therefore I would submit to the noble Baron whether it would be of any utility to persevere with the Amendment of which he has given notice. It would hardly be right or fitting that any gentleman who might by possibility be implicated in criminal proceedings should be called on or even allowed to give testimony touching his share in these transactions. I cannot, however, do more than suggest that for the wise consideration of the noble Baron. With regard to the civil aspect of the case, I think I may venture to say that you may proceed to deal with it without in any manner affecting its criminal aspect. Its criminal aspect, I think, may not be at all compromised, or the power of

1301
prosecution affected by discreet measures being adopted with a view to ascertain the best mode of dealing with the civil rights and property of the parties. My Lords, I abstain from saying more than to give your Lordships a pledge that this matter shall be investigated by the Government without any delay whatever.
LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, that after the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack he would not venture to press his Amendment; but hoped he might be allowed, on the part of a gentleman whose character and conduct were very much implicated in these transactions, to lay on their Lordships' table a Petition from Mr. Ralph Ward Jackson, and briefly to call attention to some of the statements it contained. He was not going to dwell in any manner whatever on the transactions of these amalgamated companies. That House was certainly not the arena in which to enter into matters of a very extensive and complicated character spread over a great many years, and made the subject of regulation or rather of no regulation by divers Acts of Parliament. But when it was said by the noble Earl (the Earl of Donoughmore) who commenced this discussion, that he was forming, as it were, a grand jury for the consideration of this subject, he must be allowed to say that this was just what had been already done by the noble Viscount and the Committee. Mr. Jackson complained in his Petition that the Committee's Report contained ex parte statements seriously affecting his conduct and character; that he had not been present when the witnesses were examined, and hence arose his correspondence with the Chairman, printed in the appendix to the Report; that when he had come to town, he appeared before the Committee and tendered himself for examination, but was refused; that many of the matters in the Report had been misrepresented, and others not fully examined; that he was no party to any false accounts of the Companies' affairs; that these were regularly examined and certified by auditors of unimpeach able integrity; that he had always been ready, and was now anxious, to give the fullest information relative to his conduct in connection with these transactions; and he prayed to be allowed to give all neccessary explanations. Such was the prayer of this Petition. It was perfectly true that the transactions of these Companies appeared, on evidence of ex parte witnesses, to bear a very suspicious character,
1302
He did not present himself as the apologist or defender of Mr. Jackson, but, on every principle of justice, their Lordships were bound to hear both sides, and he laid the Petition on their table in the confidence that its appeal to their Lordships' sense of justice would not be made in vain.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that after the discussion which had taken place, and especially after what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he should not press his first Resolution. He should, however, move, adopting the Amendment of the noble Earl opposite, the second—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report as to what legislative Measures are desirable for the Purpose of restraining Directors of Railway Companies from exceeding the Limits of the borrowing Powers fixed by their Act of Parliament; from evading those Provisions of their Act of Parliament which require that a certain Portion of their authorized Capital shall be subscribed and paid up before their borrowing Powers can come into operation, and from expending the Funds of Companies for Purposes foreign to their Undertakings and unauthorized by the Legislature."
LORD OVERSTONEhoped there would be no misunderstanding as to the nature of the duties which the Committee, if appointed, would he called upon to discharge. It was, he contended, most important for the interests of the railway companies themselves as borrowers, as well as for the interests of industrious and careful persons scattered widely all over the country, that some effectual means should be taken for giving positive security as to the validity of the bonds which were issued.
LORD STANLEY OF ADDERLEYthought the Resolution would fully meet the view of his noble Friend if the following words were added to it:—"And also to inquire into what securities can be given to holders of debentures as to the validity and legality of the issue of such bonds."
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Then it was moved,
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report as to what Legislative Measures are desirable for the Purpose of restraining Directors of Railway Companies from exceeding the Limits of the borrowing Powers fixed by their Act of Parliament, from evading those Provisions of their Act of Parliament which require that a certain Portion of their authorized Capital shall be subscribed and paid up before their borrowing Powers can come into operation, and from expending the Funds of Companies for Purposes foreign to their Undertakings and unauthorized by the Legislature; and also to inquire what Securities

1303
can be given to the Holders of Debentures as to the Validity and Legality of the Issue of such Bonds; agreed to: (The Viscount Hutchinson.)
The Lords following were named of the Committee; the Committee to meet on Friday next, at Two o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman:—

Ld. President.

L. Redesdale.

D. Devonshire.

L. Portman.

Ld. Steward.

L. Stanley of Adderley.

E. Airlie.

L. Dartrey.

E. Macclesfield.

L. Overstone.

E. Powis.

L. Chelmsford.

V. Hutchinson.

L. Taunton.

L. Wodehouse.

LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that their Lordships having agreed to the appointment of a Select Committee, he now rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice. The capital of the company, under three different Acts of Parliament, amounted to £2,100,000, and there was power to borrow, commencing when one half the share capital had been paid up, to the extent of one third of the sum so paid up. Even if the whole share capital had been paid up, the utmost they were empowered to borrow was £350,000. Their Lordships, however, had heard that they had, in fact, borrowed to the extent of £2,700,000. The bonds issued to the amount of the borrowing powers would be valid, and they only became invalid when that amount was exceeded; and this being so, it was impossible for any person having bonds to ascertain whether they were valid or not. Proceedings had been instituted in Chancery to establish the validity of some of the bonds, and the suit was suspended, in hopes that the Legislature would interfere and give some relief to innocent persons who had taken the bonds without the means of ascertaining whether the borrowing powers of the Company had been exceeded or not. It was perfectly clear that an immense amount of litigation would be necessary in order to determine the rights of the different parties; and under these circumstances the Bill was introduced, the object of which was to convert the debentures and bonds into paid-up consolidated stock of the Company, and to enable the bondholders to obtain arrears of interest up to the 30th of the present month at 3 per cent. But, unfortunately, the preference and ordinary shareholders opposed the Bill, and that opposition stimulated the vigilance of the Committee and induced an inquiry into the transaction, which led to an unfavourable Report of the Bill. The ordinary and
1304
preference shareholders were dismayed at the result of their opposition, and the moment that they saw the probability of the Bill being lost they withdrew that opposition. It was most important that this or a similar Bill should pass without delay, if their Lordships desired to give any relief to the bondholders, many of whom were in a very humble position in life, and had embarked their all in the investment. There was every probability that the concern would be a most flourishing one; for in spite of these discouraging circumstances the gross weekly revenue was £4,000. Unless a Bill were passed at once to give the requisite relief, the bondholders, deprived of their dividends, would be obliged to part with their securities at a great sacrifice, and then the Bill, which their Lordships must ultimately pass, would merely benefit the parties who profited by the unfortunate transfer. He had so drawn the instruction to the Committee as to exclude from any benefit persons implicated in the fraud, and he trusted their Lordships would give their assent to the Motion. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving—
"That the West Hartlepool Harbour and Railway Bill, together with the Evidence taken respecting it, be referred to the same Committee, with Instructions to consider and report whether the said Bill might be allowed to proceed, with the view Of affording Relief to the Bondholders and Shareholders not implicated in the illegal Proceedings brought under the Notice of the House, without exempting those Persons who may have been Parties to those Proceedings from any Responsibility they may thereby have incurred."
Petition for Opportunity of giving further Explanation respecting, and to be heard by counsel; of Ralph Ward Jackson, of Greatham Hall, Esquire; read, and Ordered to lie on the Table.
EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say, that proceedings in Chancery could only inflict great hardship upon many innocent persons, and waste a large and valuable property. He recommended that the Bill should be referred to the Committee about to be appointed, and they could say whether in their opinion it should be afterwards referred as an unopposed Bill to the Chairman of Committees or to a Select Committee.
LORD REDESDALEhoped the Committee would suggest some amendment of the law and practice, so as to prevent a recurrence of such a transaction in future. He objected to the Bill being referred to him, and thought it better that the same

1305
Committee should report whether it should be allowed to pass "with or without Amend merits." It was an exceptional case, and would not afford any precedent, because this Bill would he passed expressly to relieve innocent persons from a difficulty in which they had been placed by transactions of a very peculiar character.
The Motion was then amended; and agreed to, as follows:—
"That the West Hartlepool Harbour and Railway Bill, together with the Evidence taken re specting it, be referred to the same Committee with Instructions to consider and report whether the said Bill might be allowed to proceed with or without Alteration, with the view of affording Relief to the Bondholders and Shareholders not implicated in the illegal Proceedings brought under the Notice of the House, without exempting those Persons who may have been Parties to those Proceedings from any Responsibility they may thereby have incurred."

MILLINERS' WORK-ROOMS AND DORMITORIES.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, it will be necessary to go so much more into detail in moving for the Returns relative to Bethlehem Hospital [of which the noble Earl had a notice on the Paper] than I expected, that I will postpone my Motion on that subject until Friday; but as my hon. Friend the President of the Council is in his place, I will ask him a Question of which I have given him notice. Your Lordships have, no doubt, read in the papers a report of a Coroner's Inquest on a young woman who died in a workroom of a milliner in Regent Street. The verdict was that she died of overwork, which brought on apoplexy, mainly induced by the foul and fœtid state of the room in which she worked, and the overcrowded state of the room in which she slept, I am not going to dwell on the effects of this terrible system of overcrowding, of which we had ample evidence in 1842. Since that time serious efforts have been made to remedy the evil. I myself brought in a Bill which was referred to a Select Committee, but which did not pass into law. I am not going to enter into the question of the limitation of the hours of labour, though it is frightful to think that these young women of tender years, delicately brought up, should be worked consecutively from six o'clock in the morning until eleven at night. I wish to ask the noble Earl simply whether the Government are prepared to bring in measures which will provide for the ventilation and the
1306
sanitary regulation of these workrooms? I ask no more than that. Your Lordships have already passed a measure this Session for the ventilation and inspection of bakehouses. The position of the two callings is strictly analogous, and having gone carefully through the Bill for the regulation of bakehouses, I can say that there is scarcely a provision in it which would not be applicable to these workrooms. The medical officer and the district inspector of nuisances are empowered from time to time to inspect the condition of the rooms in which the men work, and to see that they are properly ventilated and whitewashed. If the sanitary regulations which have been enacted for the protection of bakers were extended to the protection of these young women, they would go far to prevent the recurrence of these awful abominations, such as we have had a sample of at Madame Elise's, No. 120, Regent Street, which result in the death of many young women every year of our lives. I hope the Government will be prepared to take the matter up, and to bring in some Bill for the protection of those young women.
EARL GRANVILLE: I am sure your Lordships must have been deeply shocked by the event to which the noble Earl has referred, and which may be directly traced to the effects of overwork, and the whole system adopted in too many miliners' and dressmakers' workrooms. I remember the Bill which the noble Earl introduced on the subject. It received great attention in the Select Committee, and a great deal of evidence was taken upon it; but I believe the principal reason why it did not succeed was the extreme difficulty of carrying into practical execution any Bill of this sort. At present, the Government are without any powers on the subject; for I believe the legal construction of the 20th section of the Offences against the Person Act, which it has been said might apply to such cases, is very doubtful; and it is a question, therefore, whether they ought to ask for any further powers. I am not prepared to state how far the analogy which the noble Earl has drawn between this trade and the bakers' trade is complete; but there is no doubt that there would be great legal difficulty in providing for the regulation of workrooms of this sort, which vary very much in size, some of them only containing one assistant. With regard to the lodgings of the young women, it must be remembered that in a great town like this it would not

1307
be advantageous to turn young women out of their workshops at a late hour of the night to seek their lodgings at a distance. The noble Earl's suggestion shall be carefully considered; but at present I am not able to state that the Government will be prepared to introduce a Bill on the subject.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I hope the noble Earl will lose no time, as the matter is one which ought to be taken up at once.
EARL GRANVILLE: There could be no better way of having the subject properly considered than for the noble Earl himself to introduce a Bill.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.