MR. MAGUIRE said, if he understood turn on the the First Minister of the Crown aright he rather regretted that the proposition of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was not carried with a proper proviso, and, as the Liberal party were anxious that it should not be lost, he believed that three or four Gentlemen, if they were earnest in the matter, could in three or four minutes prepare a perfect clause. He would remind the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that on one division the proposal was carried in Committee by a majority of 84 to 74. He did not think that a thin House. MR. READ said, he was anxious to reduce the costs of Parliamentary Elections, but he objected to do it at the expense of the ratepayers. If it were possible to levy a fair rate for the boroughs it would be very difficult to make it with any amount of justice on the counties. One-half of the freeholders of his division of the county lived in Parliamentary boroughs in the city of Norwich or out of the county, and besides that one-half of the ratepayers were not voters, and the result would be that in his county the great bulk of the expense would fall on the non-electors and farmers of the county. MR. J. STUART MILL: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to think that unexpensiveness and purity of election is a matter which affects the elec. tors only, and that the non-electors have no interest in the matter-a view in which I confess I do not share. I do not propose to revive the question of how far the Government has treated us fairly in regard to this matter. We must accept the statement of the First Minister of the Crown that at the time when he replied to the question of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) the Government had no intention of opposing this clause. But when the right hon. Gentleman proceeds to give a history-the correctness of which is countersigned by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) of what has passed, and says that the House have rejected as ineffectual all propositions to reconcile the scheme of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) with the desirableness of giving security against vexatious contests, I cannot assent to the correctness of his statement. There was not one of the proposals made which would not, in the opinion of the supporters of the clause, have proved perfectly effectual. The objections did not VOL. CXCIII. [THIRD SERIES.] efficacy of the proposals, but on which of them was most likely to pass the House. They were overthrown by the action of the Government, but the right hon. Gentleman has not shown that there would be any difficulty in working them. The course pursued fully illustrates the old proverb "None so deaf as those who won't hear." Does anyone think that if the right hon. Gentleman applied his mind to the subject every difficulty would not quickly vanish? We have an apt illustration of the mountain-like magnitude that molehill objections may assume, in the argument of one hon. Gentleman-that if a little more money than enough is taken from the county rate for the purpose of paying election expenses it will be impossible to know what to do with the balance. We have heard of lions in the path, but difficulties such as these are snails or earwigs in the path, and not lions. Were the Government aware of the feeling of satisfaction that went through the country along with the news that the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton was carried, they would, I think, instead of throwing technical difficulties in the way of its adoption, rather bring it in in the form of a separate Bill than lose the chance of its passing. I hope, therefore, that the Motion to re-commit the Bill will be carried. MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he was quite ready for a division, and if the House were of that opinion his object would be answered. He would remind the House that there was not even a Notice of a clause on the Paper to be introduced into the Bill if the Bill was re-committed. With the various Amendments that had been proposed and the discussion that had taken place upon them, what chance was there of their agreeing to a clause? MR. CORRANCE said: As one of the county Members on this side of the House, who upon a former occasion expressed opinions not in accordance with the views of those among whom we sit, perhaps I may ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments, which may suffice to explain myself upon certain points. Of this whole Bill let me first say this, that it seems to me to possess a value beyond that of the mere penalties inflicted for an offencebeyond that even of a measure having a deterrent effect. Sir, it expresses a moral sentiment which upon the country will not be lost, and which will strengthen the hands of Parliament to govern this country. Modern Governments must rest upon re 8 K spect. Now, Sir, my approval of this clause, as a general principle, is also based upon this-it will add to the confidence of the country in those who are sent here, in certain respects. My reasons for this I have already set forth, and with these I will not now trouble the House at further length. But, Sir, what is said? That ratepayers will object. Now, Sir, one word as to this. By those who say so, it seems to be assumed that the ratepayer is a thing-a troglodyte, if you will -of a special class, sui generis, and uniform in his habits and thoughts. Is this so? In truth, I think not. Sir, the rate payer is a creature of very various habits, ways, and thoughts, if I may say so without offence, after the many remarkable descriptions of him we have heard, not wholly dissimilar from even Members of this House. You cannot correctly predicate of him that he is simply and unreservedly opposed to rates. And yet this is what is said in his behalf. Now, Sir, let me qualify this, and admit that he is opposed to payment of rates unless he can see some major advantage accruing to himself. Well, it may even be so in this case; especially among the more acute. Sir, I object to an increase of rates, on the plain ground that they are unjust, and perhaps it is for this very reason that I do not object to this. How and where and by whom is the battle to be fought? By the representation of ratepayers sent up to this House. If you give the ratepayer a direct interest in the matter, will his battle be worse fought? It is time that this was understood: protected interests make a poor fight. Sir, those who think that this question of the rates can be won by mere words or out-door agitation make a great mistake, and they miscalculate their means towards the end they would promote. The Market Bill and the malt tax, far minor points, might have made them wiser than this. Omelettes like this are not made without breaking eggs; and we do but clip the shell in this case. It is time that ratepayers should understand this. But, Sir, undoubtedly there are ratepayers of an unintelligent class, not conversant with these public affairs or their own interest in such a case; and to them, for a brief moment, you may make your appeal with success. But remember, Sir, this— that behind, or rather before, such men, we have now organized bodies of intelligent men of the middle class to whom we can appeal, and who will see their interest in to protect the ratepayer from the misuse of the public purse. We must have a proviso sufficiently large to do this. It did not seem to me that any proposition yesterday sufficiently met the case, and upon that ground I gave my vote. We must have a money deposit of a substantial class. Now, Sir, what has been said against this by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie)? That it is unconstitutional to fine an Englishman who wants to make a speech. Sir, I wish it was unconstitutional to talk nonsense, and that we could clap a fine upon it-yes, even in this House. I do not allude to the right hon. Member when I say this; but I do say that I would even double such a fine if I could. Now, Sir, in the proviso now proposed I do think we have such a guarantee of a substantial class; and that, coupled with it, the clause deserves our support. What other objection to thisthat it will not work? The Solicitor General moved its rejection; but he assigued no reason for this, or, if he did, one of this class I think I have heard such from counsel when a particularly stupid jury was addressed-"Gentlemen, you are so intelligent I needn't enlighten you; so well informed that I won't venture to instruct you; and of course you have made up your mind upon the point." But suppose, Sir, he helps us a little as to this, and deals with the difficulty-not so very great of an enactment for a separate rate. Sir, I at least believe that he will confer a great boon on that ratepaying class; and they will gladly erect in their market-places, not perhaps a statue, but that hustings upon which he will be triumphantly returned to the House without charge to him or expense. Question put," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." 91: Majority 11. Main Question put, and agreed to. REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL. [BILL 142.] [Lords.] COMMITTEE. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 13 (Liability of Company during Sea Transit). MR. DIXON moved to omit the clause. Its object was to relieve the railway companies from the sea risk which they at present incurred by booking and conveying parcels over a route a portion of which was by sea. He contended that it was undesirable to relieve these companies from a responsibility for which they were to a great extent compensated by the magnitude of the transactions which they undertook. MR. STEPHEN CAVE thought it unjust that the railway companies should be subjected to a risk to which ordinary shipowners were not liable. Steamship companies, which are sometimes competitors with railways, were protected by their bills of lading, and the wording of this clause was really taken from one of those bills of lading. The clause was simply to leave an absolute freedom of contract between all parties. Everyone must admit the great advantage to the public of through booking. The railway companies said they could not continue this, if they were to be subject to greater liability than shipowners, during the transit in vessels over which they had frequently no control. For the public convenience, and more particularly in the case of the conveyance of. cattle from Ireland to this country, it was desirable that this clause should be passed, especially as it would by no means exempt the railway companies from any responsibility they might incur through negligence. MR. CANDLISH said, he thought it unjust that the railway companies should incur this risk without receiving any compensation in the way of increased rates. For the public convenience, however, it was, he thought, unadvisable that this clause should be adopted, inasmuch as the real remedy, in his opinion, lay in an increased charge upon the parcels. MR. NEWDEGATE said, he believed that this was just one of those cases where the railway company could insure and no one else could. As the clause stood it would practically bar insurance. MR. GILPIN said, that the system of insurance hitherto in vogue had not been profitable to the railway companies, and that it was easy for merchants and others to have a running policy if they chose. Clause agreed to. Clauses 14 to 16, inclusive, agreed to. Clause 17 (Communication between Passengers and the Company's Servants). MR. HENLEY said, he objected to limiting the provisions enforcing means of communication between passengers and guards to trains running longer distances than twenty miles. MR. STEPHEN CAVE said, that though a great number of inventions for securing a communication between the passengers and the guard had been submitted to the Board of Trade, he did not believe that any plan yet tried had been found altogether satisfactory. Neither the system at work on the Continent nor that which had been tried at home was quite perfect. That very day a letter had been received from the Commissioner of Railways in Ohio, giving a description of a communication by the simple method of a cord which seemed to work well even round the sharp curves of American railways. Under these circumstances he thought it would not be well to force the companies to a large expenditure without giving some time for further trial; but as to the exact date that ought to be inserted in the clause, he was in the hands of the Committee. MR. AYRTON said, that on the Continent, when the communication was made by a passenger, the guard went to the carriage from which it had proceeded. The construction of the permanent way on the lines in this country did not permit of that being done on our railways; and as any plan yet tried in England consisted of a single signal, the guard could not know what was meant unless he stopped the train. To do that would in many cases be attended with the greatest danger to the lives of the whole of the passengers. MR. H. B. SHERIDAN said, that the principle of having a communication between passengers and guard had already been approved by that House. A means of such communication had been supplied in the express trains of the South Eastern Railway for a very considerable time, and he believed that no passenger had been found mischievous enough to make use of it for any idle purpose. After Clause 28-"(Extension of time)." MR. BAZLEY moved, after Clause 12 to insert the following clauses "II. Management. Company may appoint or authorize appointment of executive committee; Power to separate the capital and revenue management; Capital expenditure to be voted at general move directors; Preference holders on certain meetings; Company in general meeting may requestions to have a right to vote; Questions may be decided by voting papers; Report of question and voting papers to be sent to shareholders; Secretary to receive proxies and voting papers." MR. STEPHEN CAVE, while admitting the advantage of the objects aimed at by the hon. Member, objected to these clauses, some of which would effect a revolution in railway administration. Many of them no doubt were useful, and he had given, under the clause extending the Railway Companies Powers Act, increased facility for adopting them. Of others he might say with all respect that they were suggested during the railway panic, and would over-ride Acts of Parliament under which the railways had been constructed. They went, in his opinion, much too far to admit of their being accepted. MR. AYRTON said, that it should be recollected that directors had the power to carry out the provisions of those clauses without any Act of Parliament. Clauses negatived seriatim. MR. H. B. SHERIDAN moved in Part III., after Clause 17, to insert the following clause : (Smoking compartments for all classes.) "And all Railway Companies shall, from and after the passing of this Act, in every passenger train, provide smoking compartments for each class of passengers." MR. LEEMAN said, that some trains had so few carriages that two sets could not be provided. MR. W. B. BEAUMONT said, he was chairman of a company whose trains sometimes consisted only of one compartment. MR. J. STUART MILL suggested that the provision should be made to apply only to trains of a certain length. The abuse of smoking had become so great, and the violation of the companies' by-laws so frequent, that the smoking in trains had become a positive nuisance. Scarcely a railway carriage could be entered in which smoking was not going on, or which was not tainted with stale tobacco. MR. ALDERMAN LUSK said, he was in favour of smoking compartments. Journeying on the Charing Cross and Cannon Street line the other day he found a youth in one of the carriages with a great deal more hair on his face than brains in his head smoking vigorously; a lady was in the carriage, and presuming she objected to the smoking, he asked her to go into another compartment with him. He conducted the lady to another comthe young man. partment and returned to the contest with But smokers always had their own way. MR. LAING said, he thought the matter had better be left to supply and demand; several railway companies had already provided smoking carriages, because they found it was to their interest to do so. MR. STEPHEN CAVE sympathized with the supporters of the clause. As a non-smoker he had often suffered severely from the violation of the by-laws against smoking; but, while admitting that railway companies had been rather slow to respond to the wants of travellers in this respect, he thought it better to leave the question to be settled by public opinion. MR. J. STUART MILL said, public opinion in this instance was swayed by a majority of smokers. It was a case of oppression by a majority of a minority. COLONEL W. STUART said, he would support the clause. Anyone, no matter under what circumstances, asking a smoker to desist was generally abused like a pickpocket. MR. H. B. SHERIDAN said, he would propose to withdraw the clause and bring up an amended one at the next stage of the Bill to meet the objection raised. Clause withdrawn. MR. KENDALL moved a new clauseCarriages to be provided exclusively for women. Clause negatived. MR. LEEMAN said, he had a series of clauses to propose, but as it was now so near the hour at which the Sitting must be suspended, he would bring them up on the Report. SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN proposed the following clause : (Railway Companies to be liable to penalties in case they shall provide Trains for Prize fights.) "Any Railway Company that shall knowingly hire or otherwise provide any Special Train for the purpose of conveying parties to or to be present at any Prize fight, or who shall stop any Ordinary Train to convenience or accommodate any parties attending a Prize fight, at any place not an ordinary station on their line, shall be liable to a penalty, to be recovered in a summary way before two Justices of the county in which such Prize fight shall be held or shall be attempted to be held, of such sum, not exceeding £500 and not less than £200, as such Justices shall determine, one-half of such penalty to be paid to the party at whose suit the summons shall be issued, and the other half to be paid to the Treasurer of the county in which such Prize fight shall be held or shall be attempted to be held, in aid of the which the penalty is sought to be enforced on the Secretary of the Company, at his office ten days before the day of hearing, shall be suficient to give the Justices before whom the case shall come ju county rate; and service of the summons under risdiction to hear and determine the case." MR. CLAY said, he thought there was a considerable amount of false philanthropy in this matter. If time permitted, he had a great deal to say against this clause. A prize fight might be a very disgusting exhibition, and those who thought it was were not obliged to go to it. He did not go to prize fights; but he was of opinion that when we got rid of prize fighting the knife would appear. Clause agreed to. House resumed. the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) was the one usually pursued. MR. JACOB BRIGHT said, that there was occasions when a Saturday Sitting was perfectly legitimate; but they were not in that position now, and he therefore objected to their having to assemble to morrow. MR. MILNER GIBSON seconded the Motion. MR. DISRAELI: I regret that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jacob Bright) should have found it necessary to commence the Business of this evening by such a Motion. There is no necessity for anticipating when the adjournment will occur. That depends on the progress which will be made this evening. The House may make a compensatory progress-one which will compensate for what occurred last night. But for what happened then owing to too strict interpretation of the rules of the House-there would probably have been no necessity for anticipating a meeting tomorrow. Such a necessity may even now be prevented if the House is in the cue for making progress to night; but if not, then so far as the Government can influence the decision of the House, we shall certainly do everything to expedite the progress of the Bill that is now to be considered. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not ask the House to come yet to a decision with regard to the adjournment, because later in the evening we shall be able to form a better conclusion as to the course we ought to take. The hon. Gentleman has not been long in the House; but so far as I have observed, he has never taken any step that did not entitle him to the respect and con Committee report Progress; to sit again sideration of the House. But I observe this day. MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT. MR. JACOB BRIGHT said, he rose to move that the House at its rising should adjourn till Monday. It was a hard thing that hon. Members who had spent their days and nights in the House for the last week should have to come down again on Saturday. MR. GATHORNE HARDY rose to Order. He believed that the Motion for Adjournment must be put before a Motion for fixing the adjournment to a particular day. MR. SPEAKER was understood to say that the hon. Member for Manchester was in Order, though the course mentioned by that the Motion has been seconded by a right hon. Gentleman who has great experience of the House, and I am surprised that a Gentleman, once a Minister of the Crown, knowing, as he must, how important is the discreet management of the time of the House with a view to the proper conduct of Public Business, should have advised the hon. Gentleman to take a course which I certainly do not think will recommend itself to the general opinion of the House. MR. MILNER GIBSON: If the right hon. Gentleman had not referred to me, I should not have thought it necessary to remark that it is in consequence of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are interested in the Bill, not thinking it worth while to come down here last evening to make a |