HL Deb 12 July 1883 vol 281 cc1174-81

Amendments made by Committee considered (according to order).

VISCOUNT BURY

said, he rose to move to insert a clause empowering the Company to pay interest out of capital, such clause to be inserted in lieu of Clause 34, which had been struck out by the Committee. He was aware that such a power was contrary to the Standing Order of their Lordships' House, which had been in force since 1848. That Order was made to put a stop to the practice which had been adopted by the large Railway Companies of paying interest out of capital; but those Companies had been able to evade that Order by issuing new Stock. The similar Order of the other House had been repealed, he believed, at the instance of Mr. Chamberlain; but, on the consideration of the matter on a recent occasion, that was not considered a sufficient reason by the Government for supporting an alteration of the Standing Order of this House. The object of the Orders was to suppress bubble Companies; but this Company, which had obtained their Railway Bill last year, and now applied for this Bill, conferring upon them various additional powers, was by no means a bubble Company; it was a substantial undertaking, its capital was £8,100,000, of which a very-large portion had already been subscribed, and its promoters were well known gentlemen of position. As the locking up of this large amount of capital would hamper and delay the completion of the undertaking, he appealed to their Lordships to make this Bill an exception to the Standing Order, and empower the Company to pay interest out of capital during the construction of the works. The noble Viscount concluded by moving the clause of which he had given Notice. Moved, to insert the following clause in lieu of clause 34. struck out by the Committee: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 1882 or in the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, the company may out of any moneys by the Act of 1882 authorised to be raised pay interest at such rate not exceeding four pounds per centum per annum, as the directors may determine, to the shareholders of the company on the amount from time to time paid up on the shares allotted to or held by them respectively from the respective times of such payments up to the completion of the railways and works authorised by the Act of 1882, or such less period as the directors may determine, subject to the following conditions; (that is to say,)

  1. (a.) The aggregate amount to be so paid in interest (in this Act called 'the interest capital') shall not exceed one million three hundred and sixty-five thousand pounds in amount, and shall be deemed to be an addition to the amount of capital authorised by the Act of 1882 to be raised.
  2. (b.) Any such interest due to any shareholder shall not be payable until the company have obtained a certificate of the Board of Trade to the effect that two-thirds of the share capital by the Act of 1882 authorised in respect of which such interest is to be paid have been issued and accepted, and are held by the shareholders who or whoso executors, administrators, successors, or assigns are legally liable for the same.
  3. (c.) No such interest shall accrue in favour of any shareholder for any time during which any call on any of his shares is in arrear.
  4. (d.) Every prospectus, advertisement, or other document of the Company inviting subscriptions for shares and every certificate of shares shall contain a notice that the Company has power so to pay interest or dividend.
  5. (e.) The half-yearly accounts of the Company shall show the amount of the capital on which and the rate at which such interest or dividend has been paid.
And the Company shall not, except as aforesaid, out of any money by the Act of 1882 authorised to be raised, pay interest or dividend to any shareholder on the amount of the calls made in respect of the shares held by him, but nothing in this Act shall prevent the Company from paying to any shareholder such interest on money advanced by him beyond the amount of the calls actually made as in conformity with the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845."—(The Viscount Bury.)

THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)

said, he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion. The proposal was in substance to adopt a Resolution which had been passed by the House of Commons; but their Lordships had already expressed their opinion that the time had not arrived for adopting in this House so great a change as that Resolution involved. Moreover, he did not see any sufficient reason why this Company should come and ask for this favour. The Bill had originally contained a power to pay interest out of capital, and that power had been struck out in accordance with the Standing Order; but now the Company asked for power to pay 5 per cent interest on the capital proposed to be raised by this Bill. He admitted that this was certainly no bubble concern; but, in his opinion, to adopt the proposal now made would really be to sanction a principle that might be adopted in other Bills. The proposal contained in the clause was altogether contrary to what had been sanctioned by the House of Commons, and the clause as now drawn was not compatible with the terms in which it had originally been submitted to the Committee. The House would perceive, therefore, that the Committee had no choice but to strike the clause out of the Bill.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he agreed with what had been stated by the Chairman of Committees. When the subject was discussed the other day, the two points raised were whether the time for any change in the Standing Orders had now come, and whether facilities should be given in the case of Bills that had been brought forward in the hope that the change would be made. The present question was not the abstract merits of the clause, or of the principle on which it was based, but whether a special exception should be made for the benefit of this particular Bill, about which, as far as he could see, there was nothing whatever of a special or exceptional character.

EARL CAIRNS

said, that when the Standing Order was discussed the other day, he should have been satisfied if the House had made a special and temporary provision to meet the case of Bills introduced in the expectation that the Order would be altered. The promoters of these Bills had very great reason to complain of the course taken by the House, because they were, unquestionably, led to expect that the desired change would be made. That was the hope held out to them by Mr. Chamberlain, who, as President of the Board of Trade, was naturally the chief person to be consulted. Holding that Office the right hon. Gentleman had necessarily expressed an opinion on the subject, and could not, being the Head of the Railway Department, have spoken in the House of Commons as a private individual. If the right hon. Gentleman could not induce his Colleagues to support him, he was not fit to be President of the Board of Trade; if he was fit for that post, the Government, as a Government, ought to have indorsed his policy. Mr. Chamberlain stated that most of his Colleagues, including the Prime Minister, who was no mean authority, agreed with him; and the promoters of these Bills naturally understood from that that such was the view of the Government, and that they were entitled to go into the market on the faith of the intended change. If Mr. Chamberlain was satisfied to be thrown over by his Colleagues, that was his affair; but the promoters of the injured Companies had a right to complain of very hard treatment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he would remind the noble and learned Earl that Mr. Chamberlain expressly said that he did not speak on behalf of the Government.

EARL CAIRNS

No; but he said that most of his Colleagues, and particularly the Prime Minister, agreed with him.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

But still he did not speak on behalf of the Government as the Government. [Laughter.] Noble Lords might laugh; but he repeated that Mr. Chamberlain made it clear that he did not speak on behalf of the Government. He (the Earl of Kimberley) adhered to the argument he had previously put forward, that the Government, as a Government, ought not to interfere in this matter of the Standing Orders of the two Houses. If the Government interfered, then it must become a Party question, and such an event was highly undesirable on a matter of this kind. He failed to see in what way the promoters of these Bills had suffered hardship, as at the beginning of the Session it was impossible for them to have had any reason whatever to suppose that the Standing Orders would be altered. It was true that the House of Commons had, by a very small majority, made the alteration; but the House of Lords had refused to do so only three or four weeks afterwards, and it was not likely that much injury had been done to the Companies in so short an interval.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I understand the noble Earl bases his defence of the Government on the consideration, that if the Government did interfere in such matters as the regulation of railways under the Standing Orders of the House, it would be necessary for them to appeal to their supporters, and that it would not be possible for them to suffer a defeat. I think he exaggerates the sensitiveness of the Government. According to our recent experience, they are able to undergo defeats on many subjects without in the slightest degree affecting their existence, or even their complacency. There have been five or six subjects of no small—some of high—importance, upon which they have suffered defeats in the House of Commons, and they are more flourishing than ever—apparently in consequence of their defeats. Indeed, they remind me of the ancient and somewhat ungallant proverb— A woman, a spaniel, and a walnut tree, The more you beat them the hotter they be. Reference has been made, rather unfortunately, to Mr. Chamberlain, who seems to be engaged in re-making our British Constitution. He is altering dogmas that have been accepted for years and generations, and we follow the process with some natural interest. We wish to know if the old system of Party Government and Ministerial responsibility, under which we have been governed so long, is to be maintained, or whether we are to get into that system of divided responsibility which prevails in another country, under which Governments can drop any individual Member of whom they do not approve without their collective responsibility being affected? Now, I venture to say that it is quite new to be told that on that matter which concerns a Department of the Government, and concerns it specially, the Chief of that Department can give his own opi- nion in Parliament, can state that he has with him the Prime Minister and most of his Colleagues, and yet that the responsibility of the Government is in no degree engaged. There is nothing whatever to separate this case from other Departments of the Government. The distinction which the noble Earl attempted to establish with respect to Standing Orders and other questions has no validity whatever. Why, Parliament was assembled last autumn on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, and under the strongest pressure on the part of the Government, in order to make most important alterations on the Standing Orders of the House of Commons; and no one will maintain that these Standing Orders were not put forward on the responsibility of the Government, and pressed with all the vigour of Party discipline. I see nothing to separate that case from such a case as this. If the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary opposite was to come down and tell us that his opinion was that New Guinea ought not to be annexed, and that the Prime Minister and most of his Colleagues were of that opinion, but that it was not the opinion of the Government, and we were to find out subsequently that in the opinion of the Government New Guinea was to be annexed, we should be somewhat surprised, yet the proceedings upon this Standing Order are hardly less anomalous. I think too much emphasis cannot be laid on the strange abandonment on the part of the Board of Trade of this its special duty, or the strange abandonment by the Government of that Department of the Government to which this duty is specially assigned. With respect to the matter before the House, I think my noble Friend at the Table and the Government have taken the responsibility of dealing with this question. My noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns) offered a compromise a short time ago; but it was rejected, and we must leave with the Government the responsibility of dealing with this matter in its own way.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he thought that the noble Marquess, who had not addressed the greater part of his remarks to the Question before the House, had confounded too very different things—namely, the Standing Orders affecting Private Business and the Standing Orders affecting Public Business. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons affecting Public Business were naturally of the greatest importance to those to whom the House looked for the conduct of Public Business; but the Standing Orders affecting the Private Business of Parliament appeared to him to stand in an entirely different position. The character of that Private Business was such that he thought it would be a misfortune if it were mixed up with those considerations by which Parties were divided, and if the Government of the day took a greater part than it had been accustomed to take in the regulation of those matters which related to Private Business. Private Business was very extensive and important, and was conducted in a semi-judicial manner; so that, while every Member of the Government, and indeed of the House, was entitled to advise on the Orders, it would be wrong for the Ministry, as a whole, to assume a control over them. With respect to the proposed Standing Orders now before the House, he admitted that, both officially and from his great knowledge on such subjects, the opinion of Mr. Chamberlain on a matter of that sort was entitled to great consideration—as was also the opinion of his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns)—but when Mr. Chamberlain did not advance his opinion as an official opinion, and especially disclaimed speaking for the Government, even though he might say that he believed some of his Colleagues, or most of them, shared his views, yet, when he disclaimed speaking for the Government, he did not think it was very reasonable for noble Lords to insist that what he said was to be taken as spoken for the Government and as President of the Board of Trade. As a matter of fact, whether he made a mistake or whether he did not in what he said as to the opinions of others, it was quite clear that he did not so speak, and he took pains to make it understood that he did not so speak. He thought their Lordships would not be unable to perceive that it was impossible that Mr. Chamberlain could have consulted all his Colleagues and taken their general sense, and then have spoken on the subject merely as expressing the opinion of some individuals. Noble Lords in that House were perfectly free to consider the matter without bias, especially as none of the Bills affected by the recent decision could possibly have been introduced in the expectation that the Standing Orders would be altered in either House of Parliament; at all events, neither House of Parliament had done anything to justify such an expectation. And of all the Bills that were supposed to be thus affected the present Bill was the very last of which such a thing could be said, as it had not been sent up from the other House where the Order had been modified, but had originated in their Lordships' House, and in the very teeth of the Order which they had just refused to change.

VISCOUNT BURY

said, that, after the expression of opinion he had just heard, he would not trouble the House to go to a Division. At the same time, he wished to observe that Mr. Chamberlain's opinion had long been known, and no one imagined, when the Bill was being prepared, that his opinion was not that of the Government. A Bill was to be brought in dealing with continuous brakes, and the noble Lord (Lord Sudeley) who represented the Board of Trade in that House had promised to support it. Did the noble Lord represent himself only or the Government? Of course they would attach more importance to that promise if it were made on behalf of the Government than of a private Member.

On Question? Resolved in the negative.