House of Lords Sessional Papers (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1863 Excerpt: ...140. In that case, would not the public be only exercising its own judgment upon the returns made by the company and transmitted to the Board of Trade? The public then would be responsible for the judgment they exercised; but if they were relying upon the sanction of the Board of Trade, would they not be relieved from their own judgment by relying upon a public department, which would thereby be giving a security which did not exist? No, I think not. 141. Lord Overstone. Do you think that any greater advantage or security to the bondholders would arise from a return being lodged in the office of the Board of Trade over the simple plan of having that return exhibited in the form of an endorsement upon the bond itself? Yes, I think it would. 142. You think that making the return to the Board of Trade would give greater security than the mere endorsement of that return? I do. 143. For what reason? Because I presume it would be accompanied by responsibility, and punishment for a false return. 144. I presume the same punishment in either case. An objection is raised, or, at least, a doubt is raised, with regard to the expediency of making a return to the Board of Trade, that it would involve an idea of greater security to the bondholder than is really given to him by that means. My question is, upon what ground do you think that a return to the Board of Trade is preferable to an endorsement upon the bond itself, the penal consequences of anything fraudulent in either of those returns being the same? I do not know that there would be any greater advantage in the one course over the other, if it is understood that there is equal responsibility on the part of the directors. I think the object is to make them careful, and the return suggested would be a more formal ...