had fallen and of the sufferings the public had undergone had arisen from that extreme anxiety which the noble Lord himself had had so large a share in enforcing. There was one reason why their Lordships should not accept the doctrine of the noble Lord, which was that the value of money was from time to time subject to great variations; and there was nothing which affected it so much as large discoveries of the precious metals. Another consideration was, that so long as even small dividends come to the proprietors, directorswho, with other elastic bodies always moved in the direction of the least resistance-would try to meet the complaints of the public by making the railway as comfortable as possible; but the moment the dividend became so small that the complaints of the shareholders became more violent than those of the public, every possible economy was practised, and the comfort of the public became quite a secondary consideration. He had ventured to call their Lordships' attention to this question of the dynamics of railway Boards in order to show that no legislation which Parliament might adopt would prevent those Boards from consulting their own interests against those of the public, and therefore there was the greatest possible inducement to adopt a generous treatment of railway companies as a matter of policy in regard to the public. He was one of those who held a strong opinion that it was a great mistake to allow those great lines of communication to get into the hands of private companies; but, having done so, Parliament must not crush out the private interests which they had thus encouraged. He had no objection to the proposal of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Taunton); but he hoped the House would never consent to be led away by the arguments which had been used by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees (Lord Redesdale). EARL GRANVILLE said, this was a question which they could afford to discuss in a cold latitude, and it appeared to be quite possible to do so in a spirit neither of partiality nor hostility to the railway companies. He agreed with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that their Lordships could not adopt the principle laid down by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, that it was impossible at any time to grant a rise in railway fares. He held that the proposal of his noble Friend (Lord Taunton) would act as a security that a power of that kind would not be carelessly granted. Such a power was desirable, not only on account of the variations in the value of money, but also on account of the variations in the rate of wages, and a thousand other circumstances which must make a great difference in determining matters of that sort. Suppose that a company showed that they could not continue to work a line at the rate of fares they were charging and no one would buy it, the result would be that the railway would be closed unless the fares were raised, and the public might be put to the most serious inconvenience. He protested against the implied charge that the Board of Trade could not be trusted to supply facts and data on which Parliament could proceed. He had the greatest confidence in the noble Duke the President of the Board of Trade (the Duke of Richmond), and he believed the Board would act impartially and judicially in a question of this sort. THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND said, that the question raised by his noble Friend behind him had a very important bearing upon the public interests. He quite agreed with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that it was not desirable to lay down a "hard and fast line" such as that recommended by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. Great injury might be done to the public from such a course, particularly in the case of a short line which it might be desirable to carry on, but which might be shut up because it had become entirely unremunerative. Therefore a power to increase the fares to a slight degree might be very beneficial. It would be most unjust not to take into consideration the difficulties in which railway companies were sometimes placed. They must take care that they did not prevent new railways being established, which might be the case if they were to lay down a "hard and fast line.' THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE said, he felt very strongly that it would be most unadvisable to lay down a "hard and fast line ;" but he did not think that fares should be raised except in very exceptional cases. That fares should not be raised without good reason was a matter which affected the railway companies as much as the public. In a case which was before their Lordships the other day the company offered no reason whatever for raising the fares except that they had expended a great deal of money. They did not pretend that it would be of any advantage to the public, the shareholders,, The object of the Motion was merely that or any party whatever; they simply said in cases where a railway company prothat they had spent money and they posed to ask Parliament for power to wanted to have the fares raised. He increase its fares a special Report from wished to have the public protected, and the Board of Trade should be laid upon who was so proper to protect them as the the table, in order that their Lordships' Minister of trade and commerce of the attention might be duly directed to the country? No doubt the public and also subject. He saw no objection whatever the shareholders had suffered because the to such a proposition, and on the part of Government had not sufficient control over the Government he had great pleasure in the management of railways. The Go- acceding to the Motion of the noble Lord. vernment only had a certain amount of control over the accounts, with which they ought not to have meddled as much as they had done. The present Motion was, in his opinion, a most valuable one, and he sincerely trusted that the Government would not oppose it, but would take upon themselves that responsibility which they ought to assume in the interests of the public. LORD HOUGHTON said, he thought it an anomaly that the management of a railway was not affected by the ordinary law of supply and demand with regard to the charges it made and the remuneration it received, although it was, to a certain extent, a monopoly. If a "hard and fast line" were applied to railway fares it certainly could not be applied to railway management, for unremunerative fares THE DUKE OF RICHMOND said, he would always result in insufficient attendmust enter his protest against the lan- ance, dangerous materials, and bad manageguage used by his noble Friend the Chair- ment generally. To assume that a railway man of Committees (Lord Redesdale) with would not be affected by a change in the regard to the Department over which he value of money or a rise in the price of had the honour to preside. He was ex- iron, and that the fares ought to be unitremely sorry to hear remarks of such a form, notwithstanding such mutations, kind coming from his noble Friend, be- was, in his opinion, a totally incorrect cause, proceeding from such a quarter, application of a well-known commercial they were calculated to carry with them principle. Indeed, it was almost imposconsiderable weight. He was afraid his sible to conceive that any rate of fares noble Friend was not justified in making could be both remunerative to the company those remarks, which, in point of fact, and just to the public if they were conamounted to charges of dishonesty on the tinued unchanged for a long period of part of the officials of the Board of Trade. time. In his belief the advantage gained Unless his noble Friend was prepared to by the public would be in proportion to prove that the officials of that Department the freedom and pliancy given to the sys. had been actuated by dishonest motives he tem of railway charges, and the possibility was not justified in making such a charge; of railway remuneration. In conclusion, and he might remark that if the charge he would point out that the whole queswere distinctly brought forward in their tion of excursion trains depended upon Lordships' House he should be prepared to the raising and lowering of fares. meet it with a distinct and unqualified EARL FORTESCUE said, he must procontradiction. As to the subject imme-test against the doctrine of the noble Lord diately under consideration, he would not discuss it, because it had already fully occupied the attention of their Lordships' House, and had also been fully debated in the House on a former occasion on the Motion introduced by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Clanricarde). The noble Lord opposite (Lord Camoys) did not appear to have correctly apprehended the object of the Motion, for he understood the noble Lord to say it would be unfair to allow the decision of the House to be over-ridden by the decision of the Board of Trade. Now, he believed that the Motion raised no question as to the Board of Trade deciding the matter. who had just sat down (Lord Houghton) that the trade and commerce of the country should be kept in a perpetual state of uncertainty, which would be the consequence of the pliability and variability which his noble Friend had so highly extolled. It should be remembered that a great part of the expenses to be defrayed by railways consisted of the interest on the capital which had been expended upon their original construction; and wages, materials, and working expenses did not constitute so large a portion of the outlay as had been represented. He wished to impress upon their Lordships that the interests of the public were not represented before said that such a provision ought to be proposed as a public matter, not affecting one company, but applicable to all. He further stated that there was a Railway Bill at that time before the House, and that the provision might be proposed in that Bill and discussed as a public question. Now, I find that he has been to the Board of Trade, and that this very provision is to be proposed in the Commons by the Vice President of the Board of Trade in Committee upon the Railway Bill referred to. That is what I have complained of, and it is well worthy of consideration. The Bill will return to this House at a late period of the Session, and, in all probability, the imprudence of the Vice President will impose upon your Lordships the necessity of reversing a decision of the other House. Why should it not have been left to Mr. Watkin to propose the Amendment when it had in substance been rejected by your Lordships? Railway Committees, nor before Private Bill Committees generally, and the case of the public was not stated before such Committees. In some instances the interests of opponents might be identified with those of the public, but in many cases it did not suit opponents, who were generally another company, in the case of railway Bills to consult the interests of the public. To support this position he quoted the Report of a Committee of 1847, who said that the chief imperfections of the present system arose from the fact that no provision was made for furnishing Committees with complete and trustworthy information as to local wants; and that when a Bill was not opposed the Committee were wholly dependent for information on the interested representations of the promoters, while expense deterred all persons from opposing unless their interests were directly affected. The public were as much interested in being represented by counsel before a Committee as prisoners were in being defended by counsel. Exactly the same arguments used to be urged against the defence of prisoners that were now urged against the representation of the public, and he could only hope that in the course of time the public would succeed, as prisoners had done, in obtaining professional representation. He considered that the Motion would be of the utmost value, and he thanked the noble Duke at the head of the Board of Trade for acceding to it. LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, I wish to offer a few words of explanation in consequence of what fell from the noble Duke the President of the Board of Trade. I made no charge of corruption against the officials of the Board of Trade, but I did say that from the intercourse which they have with clever persons belonging to the railway companies, and the railway influence brought to bear upon them, some thing such as I have referred to is sure to be the consequence. I have seen evidence of it on many occasions. I can even now cite a case which is just occurring. Your Lordships will remember that on the 30th of June there was a division in this House upon a provision in the South Eastern Railway Bill with regard to the division of the ordinary capital into deferred and preferred stock. I objected to that provision, and your Lordships rejected it by a majority of 44 to 35. Mr. Watkin, the Chairman of that Railway, then came to me and represented the importance of carrying this provision, and LORD TAUNTON said, as their Lordships seemed disposed to accept the Resolution, which it would be necessary to embody in a Standing Order, perhaps the Chairman of Committees would undertake the responsibility of giving effect to the wishes of the House. Motion agreed to. REVENUE OFFICERS DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL-(No. 204.) (The Lord Abinger.) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. LORD ABINGER said, that he had just presented to their Lordships no less that ninety-eight Petitions in its favour. These were chiefly from officers of the Customs, Revenue, and Postal Services in all parts of the country. To one Petition from the General Post Office 1,200 signatures were attached; and the Petitions from the London districts and from the Post Office employés of Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds, and Bristol, gave a total of 3,189 signatures. There were also Petitions from the Mayor and Corporation of Wexford; the Provost, Magistrates, and Councillors of Leith; the Town Commissioners of Galway; the Inhabitants of Brechin and of Lichfield; and the Town Council of Nairn. It seldom happened that so small a Bill involved the interests of so large a number of persons. The Bill consisted of only one clause; but the number of persons the Bill affected was 36,000-26,000 in the Post Office, 5,500 in the Customs, and 5,000 in the Inland Revenue; and these public servants felt, after the large amount of enfranchisement conferred by the last Reform Bill, that a stigma would be cast upon them if they were classed with the residuum and the few respectable people who were out of the pale of the franchise. In 1782, when the disability was imposed, it was a wise and judicious measure, and it was passed with the approval of the public and of the Services because the Government unscrupulously used its influence with the officers of the different Departments. A great change occurred in 1832; and now the electoral roll had been so much enlarged that the votes of revenue officers, even if they were at the disposal of Government, could not have any appreciable influence on the elections. The admission of a large number of respectable persons to the list of voters would nevertheless strengthen the hands of almost any Administration. The Commissioners of Customs had drawn up a document in reference to this question, in which they adduced what he regarded as very illogical reasons against allowing revenue officers to vote. They alleged that to do so would be to introduce political agitation in a Department which was now free from it. Now, it had also been asserted in the House of Commons that the revenue officers themselves felt no anxiety on the subject; and, in support of that assertion, reference had been made to the fact that only a comparatively small number of Petitions had been presented in favour of the Bill, but a full and sufficient answer had been given to that allegation. An enormous number of Petitions had been presented to their Lordships' House in favour of the measure. He himself had presented no fewer than 130 from various parts of the country. If the Bill were not passed there would be a constant repetition of these demands. Again, it was alleged in the Minute of the Commissioners of Customs that great inconvenience would result to the public service from the leave of absence which would have to be given to the revenue officers in order to enable them to attend at elections. Having regard to the fact that elections were not very frequent occurrences, he did not think he need go into any argument in refutation of that statement. It was said, further, that if revenue officers had votes this circumstance might lead to political combinations on their part in order to obtain an increase of salary; but he could not at all agree to that assumption. In the House of Commons there was a large number of military officers, and there was a good sprinkling of them in their Lordships' House also; but he had yet to learn that in either House those gallant officers had agitated for an increase of pay to themselves or the soldiers under their command. It was true that there had been an increase in the pay of the soldiers, but that increase was an effect of the law of supply and demand. The Board of Excise objected to the Bill, but their Report was still weaker in its arguments and less deserv ing of attention than the Report from the Customs. It urged that the possession of the franchise would inconvenience the officers themselves, and render them liable to be placed in unpleasant positions; but that argument did not go for much when it was found that they desired the fran chise. And their Lordships would bear in mind that the Bill was supported by the heads of the Departments. Fifteen out of the seventeen heads of the Excise Department were in favour of its passing. The Bill was not one creating a right, but one removing disabilities which had been imposed upon a portion of Her Majesty's subjects. It did not touch those Acts which prohibited public servants from unduly influencing others in the exercise of the franchise. Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." -(The Lord Abinger.) THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I venture to ask your Lordships' very anxious consideration for a few minutes, both to the principle of this Bill and to the position in which the measure now stands. My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the second reading said no more than what was accurate when he said that this Bill was one of extreme importance. It is of extreme importance, on the one hand, because it involves the political franchise of a large number of our fellow-subjects. It is important, on the other hand, because it is supposed by authorities whose opinion deserves the greatest consideration that this measure, if passed into law, would affect the collection of the public Revenue. I freely admit the proposition of the noble Lord who moved the second reading (Lord Abinger) that the burden entirely lies on those who oppose the admission to the franchise of the class of whom he has one the peculiar characteristic of which spoken to establish some reason why the would be that it would not in any way be franchise should be refused to these per- a disfranchising Bill; and they accordingly sons. At first sight they have got every abstained from making the proposition that qualification which, I think, should incline had been made on former occasions for disus to extend the franchise to them. They franchising the dockyard workmen. Now, are selected, in the first instance, by a the Acts of Parliament which disabled the process which, at one time, found con- civil servants of the Post Office, the Inland siderable favour as the basis of the fran- Revenue, and the Customs from voting chise, namely, the process of competitive were passed, the one of them in the last examination. With regard to their con- century and the other two in the begintinuance in the public service and to their ning of the present century. According promotion, it is not too much to say that to their Preambles the ground of those both depend on their intelligence and good measures was, as the noble Lord has stated, conduct. In addition to that they are a desire on the part of the Legislature to generally persons of whom we may truly keep in check and to control the power of say they represent the heads of families. the Crown, which it was then supposed They of all others are interested in the might be exercised in a manner dangerous well-being of the country, because on the to the freedom of election by the opporwell-being of the country the hope of their tunity which the Crown had of placing in livelihood and the hope of their promotion those three great branches of the public must depend. Further than that, the service persons who, if entitled to the noble Lord is entitled to this admission, franchise, might be disposed to use it in that there is certainly in this country no favour of the Government of the day by general rule applicable to the Civil Service whom they had been promoted. The cirdisqualifying the members of it from the cumstances of the present time are in two exercise of the franchise. You at present respects extremely different. In the first entrust the franchise to that large class of place, the constitution of Parliament has civil servants who are under the control of been very materially altered, first by the the Treasury, who are connected with the Act of 1832, and then by laws which Departments of the Secretaries of State, have since then been passed. Moreover, who are under the superintendence of the there has been introduced into those Admiralty and of the War Department; three branches of the service a system and the only three Departments the ser- altogether unknown at the period when vants of which are now deprived of the the earlier Acts were passed, and which franchise are the Post Office, the Customs, has made an important modification in and the Inland Revenue. There is es- those Departments. I refer to the repecially a very large class of persons in form in the Inland Revenue and the the employment of one of the Departments Customs, according to which no appoint. to which I have referred who are at present ments, except first appointments, are made in possession of the franchise-I mean the by the Executive Government; and even numerous body who are engaged in the the first appointments can hardly be said Royal Dockyards. Let me remind your to proceed from the Executive GovernLordships-for the history of this question ment, which, in substance, only nominates must be kept in view-of the course which a limited number of candidates, who comParliament took in regard to the persons pete together by examination. Therefore, employed in the dockyards. The Reform in those Departments the reason for the Bill introduced in 1859 contained, for the older legislation has disappeared. But, on first time, I think, a clause proposing to the other hand, it must be observed that withhold the franchise from the workmen the permanent heads of the Customs and in the dockyards. That Bill did not become Inland Revenue at all times in recent law; but in 1866, when another measure years, when the proposition has been of Reform was brought in by the late Go- made to confer the franchise on the servernment, a similar clause was inserted vants in their employment, testified the withholding the franchise from the dock- most decided repugnance to any legislation yard workmen. In the last Session, when in that direction. Your Lordships will, I the Bill which has now become law was think, agree with what has been stated introduced into Parliament, the Govern- by every Government which in modern ment of the day recommended it as a very days has held Office in this country large measure of enfranchisement, and as-namely, the great confidence which |