Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

so continued and so calumnious, that they seemed intended to drive him altogether from society. In such a situation, then, almost deprived of his character by anonymous publications-standing unlike any other gentleman within that House-seeing that injurious impressions must almost necessarily have been raised against him-he did not wish, without a full investigation and a full acquittal from all such charges, again to offer himself as their chairman. That investigation he now fully and speedily courted, and he hoped the House would do justice to his feelings. All he would now say was, that he was not guilty of the charges alleged against him. For the present, he knew he must bend to the storm; but fair weather would yet come, when he would be able to vindicate his character, and he hoped the opportunity for doing so would soon be given him. Until that trial was over, he would not offer himself to the House; but, of all things he most courted speedy investigation.

On the motion of Mr. Canning, who agreed that the course adopted by Mr. Brogden was required by a sense both of what was due to himself and to the House, sir Alexander Grant was called to the chair. Alderman Waithman now showed little anxiety to proceed with his specific charge; and Mr. Brogden, on the 30th of November, a whole week having elapsed, requested him to explain his intentions, and not to inflict torture by delay. The alderman answered, that his intention was, to propose a general inquiry into all joint-stock companies, and the conduct of their directors, necessarily including the Arigna Mining Company, but he did not desire to mark out any in

dividual as the subject of particular investigation. However, so many members were under the necessity of being absent from town at this time on their private affairs, that he could not proceed, with any hope of success, in so extensive an investigation, till after the recess.

Mr. Maberly complained, with some warmth, and apparently with some justice, of this procrastinating mode of proceeding. If he had rightly understood the alderman, when, on a former night, he introduced the subject to the House, it appeared to be his intention at first to prefer a charge of a specific nature against the hon. member for Launceston (Mr. Brogden). Afterwards, when he found that hon. gentleman declining to take the chair of the committees of the House, the alderman shifted his ground from a particular charge to an attack of a general nature against all joint-stock schemes, and (it was to be supposed) many members of the House. Was it a fair way of proceeding, to convert a particular insinuation into a general charge? Was the hon. gentleman's character to be attacked and injured, and then the discussion which was expected to arise to be put off? The inquiry should be an immediate, not a remote one.

Accordingly Alderman Waithman moved, on the 5th December, for the appointment of a select committee upon the joint-stock speculations of the last three years. He spoke, at great length, of the number of companies which, during that time, had been erected, amounting to no fewer than six hundred, and requiring, for the execution of their intended operations, a capital of many millions; he complained of the dishonest views with which they were originally

set on foot, the knavery by which a fictitious value was for a time given to shares which had cost nothing, that the solid differences between imaginary prices might fill the pockets of the gambling speculators; and of the misery and ruin produced by this systematic swindling. If a man purchased in the lottery, he knew something of what he was doing; that he was giving a certain sum for a very un likely chance; and that, in doing so, he was conferring some benefit on government. But the jointstock gambling was of a much more atrocious kind; it was gambling with false dice. The loss itself on the whole speculation was an evil; but the great and signal grievance was, that the holders of the shares, now worth nothing, were not the losers. The original swindlers worked up the market to the point which they had expected it to attain; then down went the shares; and when they were down, the original swindlers again bought them up, and were now the holders. The Arigna Mining Company, both in its extent and its amount, was small in comparison with some others; but, in looking at the conduct of its directors, it did not appear to be behind any of them in nefarious management. In this company there were 3,000 shares, and the first deposit was 51. The premium upon them rose in one day from 8 to 24; now, whether this was or was not a trick, he would leave it to the House to determine; then it got to 26, and then again it dropped in one day to 24. Surely such variations could never be fairly caused, and how such proceedings were brought about, he would leave to any one to form an opinion. He would have acted wrong in singling out an

[ocr errors]

individual who had held a distinguished place in that House, because there were other individuals who were not only implicated, but who appeared to be far more culpable than he. But if he did allude to this individual, and to other members of the House, he did it only in the discharge of his duty; and if his majesty's ministers did theirs, and directed some inquiry to be made, in his mind it. would be utterly impossible for some members of that House to retain their seats. The House should bear in mind, that the indi viduals connected with this com pany, against whom charges were made, were directors were trustees -bound to be careful, not so much of their own interests, as of the interests of others which had been committed to them. What, then, were the public to think, if those who were trustees were found guilty of fraud? They were the first to ask how were they to be paid? Why, they were to get two or three guineas daily for sitting at a table, and signing their names as having done so, and to get seven guineas for doing a little more. How were they to be paid? Not by shares: no, so much had been said about shares, that it must not be in this way. Not so; but they were told, "Here is money; put it in your pockets," and no more. If, then, a gentleman had received 1,047, which he had put into his pocket, but was subsequently told that this sum did not arise from the sale of shares; would he not ask himself, how came it then into his pocket? He could not reply that the "workman was worthy of his hire;" for he had done no work: would he not then, or rather should he not, give the answer which his conscience dictated, and refund the

[ocr errors]

sume to those from whom it had been taken? In the acts there was no difference: the gentlemen had no shares they had paid no deposits yet those persons who were share holders, and had paid their deposits, but refused, or were unable, to pay more, were shut out, and had no remedy, because those companies had been declared to be illegal This had been declared in strong terms by the lord chief justice, who had asserted, and settled, that they were illegal; yet, notwithstanding this opinion from such authority, delivered in the clearest and most explicit terms, here were legislators setting themselves up to break the very laws which they themselves had made. If any hon. member would rise in his place, and give it as his opinion, that any individual who had so acted was worthy to sit in the chair at the table of that House, then he would say what no disinterested man would say out of the House. They, the very legis lators who made the laws, were the first to break them, and to break them in the most glaring manner. Well, this company was trying to get an act of parliament, and it was at first intended that the sum of 15,000l. should be divided between four or five individuals; but, as it was not considered safe so to do, it was then agreed to divide the spoil more extensively. One gentleman put into his pocket 2,500l. of this money, and afterwards 1,250l. as profit upon shares, yet he had not paid for those shares, and, at this very moment, was indebted to Mr. Clarke 3751. for them [Loud cries of name, name]. Mr. Waith man said, he had no objection to name; that individual was sir William Congreve. Here was a member of parliament putting this

[ocr errors]

sum into his pocket, and obtaining large sums for his brother-in-law, and other individuals and was not parliament, then, called upon to do something towards an inquiry into conduct that appeared so dishonourable? Never had there been upon parliament a fouler stain. He would venture to say, that the present of 1,000l. given to sir W. Trevor, by the city of London, on the passing of the Orphan bill, was nothing to it, or the conduct of Mr. Hutchinson in receiving at the same time a present of twenty guineas, for which he was expelled the House. Surely the House of Commons was bound to make some inquiry.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The Alderman, after some re marks on the conduct of the Equit able Loan Company, moved, that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the origin, the manage ment, and the present state, of the Joint-stock Companies formed dur ing the years 1824, 1825, and 1826, and to report on the same, together with any special matter touching any member of that House." The motion was seconded by Mr. Brog den himself.

Mr. Canning objected to the extent of the inquiry, which, he said, to be useful, must be limited and precise.

The motion, as it stood, involved many companies, against the utility and management of which no charge had ever been brought. Enough had passed in the House to give strong ground for suspicion that, in the affairs of the Arigna company, there was matter deserving inquiry, the honourable member to whom re ference had so frequently been made, having himself admitted that acts had been done for which he could find no defence. But, in consenting to this inquiry, he was

[ocr errors]

unwilling to extend it further without equally good grounds, or to destroy its very object by the extent and multiplicity of its details. Where sufficient reasons were shown for investigating the history of any other speculation, he would be equally ready to enter upon the inquiry as he now was to enter upon one into the management of the Arigna company. He, therefore, moved an amendment, limiting the committee especially to the management and history of that

company.

"A

than that afforded by the New River company? What greater advantage could a large town possess than an ample supply of good water? That work was undertaken by individuals, and carried on, originally, at a great loss to them, but with benefit to the public. Ultimately the work was productive of benefit to those who succeeded the original shareholders; but the public, who originally were benefitted, were also ultimately benefitted. The same might be said of bridges, of canals, and other great works, which distinguished this country from other countries, advanced its commerce, and increased its general wealth. All those works were undertaken by joint-stock companies, and successfully managed, not always for the benefit of the parties who had engaged in them, but always to the advantage of the public. greater illusion," said Mr. Huskisson, "cannot exist, than an attempt to cry down joint-stock companies of every description, as positive and public evils. What was the conduct of this House in that respect? Not longer ago than last session, this House countenanced a negotiation with the Bank of England, to induce them to relax a little the monopoly which that establishment enjoys by charter, in order that joint-stock companies should be established in various parts of the country, for the purpose of securing persons engaged in trade, from the loss to which they were exposed by the then existing system of currency. We quoted as an example, Scotland, where the charter of the Bank of Scotland does not prevent the formation of joint-stock companies. I am astonished to hear men of business-I am astonished to hear the

Mr. Huskisson said, that he could not allow it to go forth to the country that the House approved of the unmeasured condemnation pronounced by the worthy alderman against joint-stock companies of every description. If there was one circumstance to which, more than to another, must be attributed the great advantages derived by commerce in this country, it was the existence of joint-stock companies. The great difference between the manner in which public works were carried on in England, compared with other countries, consisted in this, that here they were under the direction of men who had a deep interest in the success of the undertaking, whilst in other countries they were left to the care of the government, and the expenses were defrayed out of the public revenues. The consequence of this latter mode of conducting public works generally was, that many which, if completed, would tend to the benefit of the public generally, were left unfinished. Many of the great works throughout the country were, originally, very disadvantageous to the projectors, although very beneficial to the public. What greater benefit could a large town enjoy

worthy alderman-talk of mining carried on by joint-stock companies as a thing of recent date. I tell those gentlemen-I tell the worthy alderman-that there has not been a mine worked in this country, time out of mind, except by means of joint-stock companies-and without the formation of such companies, those mines would not have been explored. All the mines in Cornwall, all the mines in Wales, and in the other mining districts, are carried on by joint-stock companies. I lament, Sir, very much, that the law is not in a more satisfactory state with respect to those companies. All I say is, that it ought to be the policy of the law to encourage joint-stock companies; that it is a mischievous policy to attempt to dissuade persons from engaging in them, or to take away their character; and that, when embarked in properly and fairly, they are beneficial to the public interests, and fraught with great public advantages. I do not now speak of the bubbles of the last two years. I have no hesitation in saying, that those who have been concerned in those speculations have disgraced themselves, if they knew at the time they engaged in them, that they were not likely to tend to the public benefit. I, for one, can say, that, when the discussions connected with those bubbles took place in this House, I was always ready to raise my hand against them, and to use what little weight or influence I possess, in dissuading the public from connecting themselves with ephemeral schemes, so fraught with fraud and delusion in many, and with obvious risk and hazard in other, instances."

Mr. Canning's amendment was agreed to without a division, and the committee appointed.

The resolutions of lord John Russel for detecting and suppressing bribery at elections, which had been carried by the casting vote of the Speaker, on the last day of last session, had expired by the dissolution of the parliament which passed them. Ön the 22nd of November, lord Althorp moved them in the New House of Commons, and expressed his hope that it would not, by now rejecting them, afford a singular contrast between the last session of an old parliament, and the first session of a new one. Mr. Wynn said that he certainly did not dissent in any degree from the principles on which the motion was made, and would always be ready to go into a full scrutiny of facts, wherever there was a distinct, specific, allegation of acts of bribery and corruption. But he differed greatly from the noble mover as to the means by which the object was to be attained; and the resolutions now proposed seemed to him to have several inconveniencies, from which the present practice was free. The best mode which could be adopted was, that of an election petition, upon which any elector could question the return of any member who had been guilty of corruption, who had once offered to commit any act of that description, or who had engaged any other to do so. Instances were not unknown of persons going down as candidates, and, without even tendering a single vote, making such acts the ground of petition to the House. There was another way of considering this subject, which was that, in any case where bribery had been carried on upon an extended scale, it was impossible that evidence could not be brought forward to prove it. There the statute law interfered

« EdellinenJatka »