SECOND READING. (Hansard, 7 March 1865)

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
objected to the second clause, as having a retrospective effect.

§ LORD CRANWORTH
thought that the same objection applied to the first clause.

§ THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS
said, the Bill was intended to remedy a state of things which did not exist in England. The liability of railway companies in Ireland to be made bankrupt was sometimes used as a means of extortion. The only object was to make the law in Ireland similar to that which existed in England. It was not intended to have a retrospective effect, and therefore he hoped the second reading would be agreed to.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
objected to the retrospective effect of the Bill. If the law in Ireland was that a railway company could be made bankrupt the contractor must have engaged to make the line on the faith of such a remedy, and a change in it would be an injustice.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE
thought that neither the contractors nor creditors, when they entered into their engagements, believed in the possibility of any railway being made bankrupt; and shareholders would certainly refuse to embark in any undertaking if they knew that, by so doing, they would render themselves liable for a larger amount than their shares.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that the Bill originated from an oversight, The Act passed in the 25 AMP; 26 Vict.; was intended as a general code of law for winding up companies in England and Ireland; and it proposed to repeal an Act by which the shareholders of railway companies in Ireland were supposed to be liable for debts incurred by the company. Unfortunately the Act stopped with this repeal, and the framers of it were not aware that the Act they proposed to repeal had already repealed by an Act passed in the 20 & 21 Vict. A justification for this Bill, which certainly was to some extent open to the charge of retrospective legislation, might be found in the fact that if the Legislature had been informed of what ought to be done, it would have repealed the Act of the 20 & 21 Vict.; and therefore, though it was a Government Bill, he recommended their Lordships to accede to the proposal for the second reading only on the condition that the Bill was to be amended so as only to apply to future obligations.

§ LORD REDESDALE
thought it would be of advantage if bankrupt railway companies could transfer their property into the hands of companies who would manage them efficiently. He deprecated the present 1223 Bill as likely to interfere with a permanent change in the law, such as was recommended by a Committee of their Lordships' House which sat on railway liabilities.

§ THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS
undertook that if the Bill were read a second time the Irish Law Officers should consider whether the Bill could not be amended in the sense suggested.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
suggested that as there was so much doubt on the matter the best course would be to postpone the second reading.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, it was desirable to bring the law back into the state in which the Legislature supposed it ought to be. If the Bill was now read a second time it would be on the supposition that the details of the Bill would be discussed in Committee.