and other adjoining railways in the South of England, and lower than the actual average charges of the eight principal railways having termini in the metropolis. The promoters further said South-Western, South-Eastern, Chatham, ing witnesses before the Committee to oppose the Bill? It was obvious that the Companies possessed an immense advantage over private individuals; and it was, therefore, the duty of that and of the other House of Parliament to lay down general principles instead of throwing so great a responsibility upon a Committee which had before it two sets of counsel, both of whom were interested in recommending the plunder of the public. It was to Parliament itself and not to Select Committees appointed by either House that the public must look for protection against what might become a regular system of increased fares for passengers and increased charges for goods all over the kingdom. "The reduction of 1863 proves to be more than the undertaking can bear-the resumption of balf the amount of that reduction is essential to secure the preference shareholders' interest-and the Company submit that, under the circumstances, they may fairly ask that they shall not be held bound to the full amount of a concession rashly made by their then Directors in 1863, when the shareholders were not aware of the actual position of the Company. The Committee to whom your Lordships referred the Bill gave the subject of tolls very patient, full, and careful attention, and, having heard all that could be adduced on both sides, they decided in favour of the tolls proposed in the Bill." For these reasons he supported the clause. EARL FORTESCUE said, he had no interest except that of the public interest in the question before the House. He ventured to submit that this was just one of those great questions of principle which it was desirable the House should decide for itself instead of delegating the responsibility to five of its Members, who, however able they might be, would be destitute of the advantage of being guided by principles laid down by the House itself. At present the question at issue was whether railway companies should be empowered to levy what taxes they pleased on personal locomotion and the movement of goods; or, in other words, whether Parliament should practically hand over to those companies the power of levying import and export duties on the trade, manufactures, and commerce of the country. Railways were practically, and ought to be economically monopolies, well restricted and guarded by Parliamentary provisions enforcing adequate service and restraining them from undue charges. But if it were sanctioned in any one instance that a company was to break through these restraints, and obtain the power to raise their charges a crowd of companies would ask the Legislature for increased powers of taxing our trade and commerce. In the present case there were three Companies which proposed to amalgamate, and all of which had become notorious for extorting high fares from the public. They all had precisely the same object in view; and under the circumstances was it likely that any private individual would deem it worth his while to incur the enormous expense attendant on employing counsel and bring LORD VERNON, as a member of the Committee appointed to examine this Bill, could not for a moment call in question the propriety of submitting it to a thorough. examination, without which it could not be framed on definite principles; and he thought their Lordships must feel obliged to the noble Marquess for having brought the subject forward. Although he had had only a brief experience of the business of their Lordships' House he had already come to the conclusion that the whole system of railway legislation was very vague and uncertain, and that the more general principles were adhered to the more simple and less costly would be the working of the system. There was ample proof, however, submitted to the Committee that the fares on the Brighton line were not sufficient to earn a fair dividend. When the line was opened in 1841 the ordinary first-class fare from London to Brighton was 15s., and the second-class 118. In July, 1867, however, they were reduced to 8s. 10d. and 6s. 8d. respectively. Therefore, although a slight increase was now proposed, the fares would be nothing like so high as those charged when the railway was first opened. In conclusion, he expressed his belief that the circumstances would fully justify their Lordships in passing the Bill. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND said, he could not assent to the proposal of the noble Marquess.. The speech of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Fortescue) had reference to the whole system of private legislation, but did not contain a single argument tending to show that this particular Committee had arrived at a conclusion contrary to the evidence brought before it. For his own part he differed entirely from the noble Earl, being of opinion that a ques tion of this kind ought to be sifted by a Select Committee, which had the assistance of the counsel on either side and an opportunity of examining witnesses. Indeed, everybody who had paid attention to the Private Bill legislation of this House must be aware that a Bill could not be submitted to a more searching tribunal than a Select Committee. The noble Earl was somewhat in error as to what took place before the Select Committee in 1863. There was no direct assertion made that the fares were reduced in consequence of the opposition scheme of the London, Lewes, and Beckenham railway; but it was notorious that during the progress of that Committee the Brighton Company practically said, "If you think our fares are too high we are willing to reduce them." The result was that the London, Lewes, and Beckenham scheme being thrown out, the Brighton Company had no line to compete with them. In 1866, however, the London, Lewes, and Beckenham Bill was passed. The London, Lewes, and Beckenham line was passed in 1866 as against the London and Brighton Company; but it had never been proceeded with, because the affairs of all the companies had got into so very disastrous a state. The increase of tolls now sanctioned by the Committee did not bring them up to what the Company were entitled to charge in 1863. The total of that increase amounted to only d. a mile for first and second-class passengers. There was no increase on the third-class passengers, nor was that injustice done to the agricultural interests which seemed to weigh so much on the noble Marquess. The Committee had displayed great industry. It had brought before it a very large scheme, a part of which would have entitled a company to charge any toll without being bound by any maximum. He had no doubt that the Committee was an able one, and that it had very fully considered the whole subject. He thought, therefore, it would be unwise in their Lordships to do anything which might lead the public to suppose that the Committee had not the confidence of their Lordships' House. In consequence of a decision to which the Committee had come, the Amalgamation Bill, to which so much objection had been taken in their Lordships' House, had not been pressed. Believing that the small increase sanctioned by the Committee was necessary in order to enable the Company to carry on their affairs with advantage to themselves and the public, he hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Motion of the noble Marquess. LORD REDESDALE regretted the views of the noble Duke. Railway fares, once fixed, should not be increased; and, if the proposed alteration was made in this case, there would soon be a flood of similar applications from the other railway com panies of the country. This was a question of principle, in which the House had a right to interfere, and he should cer tainly support the proposition of the noble Marquess. With regard to the Brighton Company having reduced their fares under fear of competition, they were now in precisely the same position, and held just the same monopoly of the traffic as when they agreed to the reduction, for the London, Lewes, and Beckenham line had fallen through, and was never likely to be revived. LORD TAUNTON concurred with his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees. He protested against the proposition that railway companies, after giving solemn pledges to Parliament, and obtaining powers and privileges on the strength of those pledges, being allowed afterwards to throw their engagements to the winds. From his former experience in "another place," he could say that it was the prac tice of the House of Commons to keep railway companies to their pledges. If a company violated any pledge it had given to a Committee of the House of Commons, when it came before that House again, the Board of Trade appeared against it, no matter how unobjectionable the scheme in hand might be-and represented that, as it had broken its promise, it had no right to come again before the House of Commons. That mode of proceeding had made companies very careful of giving pledges which they did not intend to keep. Knowing the ability of his noble Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee (Lord Camoys), in this case he should have voted for upholding its decision, if his noble Friend had not stated the reasons for that decision. His noble Friend said the Committee had been guided by the consideration, whether the increase of toll was not necessary, in order to enable the company to pay its way. He objected to holding out facilities to companies to levy from the public money which they had squandered. He could not concur with the noble Duke the President of the Board of Trade in thinking that the pro to give the benefit of any doubt to the Committee, who had carefully examined the subject, and that disposition certainly was strengthened by the declarations which he had heard as to the intentions of the Government. To rid themselves of competition the Company promised to lower their fares: the bargain was struck, and low fares were tried; but now the question arose whether the fares were remunerative or not. The Committee having gone into the question and decided that the fares were not sufficient to support the railway in a proper condition, he was inclined to side with the Committee. THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND thought it would be unwise to reverse the decision of the Committee; but, at the same time, felt it most impolitic to allow railway companies to break solemn promises. THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE said, the case resolved itself into thisthat as long as the Company feared competition it was prepared to lower its fares, and as soon as it had secured a monopoly it asked for powers to levy increased rates from the public. He would not, however, persist in his opposition to the clause. posed increase of tolls would not have an injurious effect on the trade of the district. But then he could not certainly approve of the course taken by his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, whose duty it was to preserve an attitude of strict impartiality. On the whole, if the Motion was pressed to a division, he should be obliged to vote with the noble Marquess. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY thought their Lordships would not act wisely in tying up the companies too tightly in the matter of fares, as the companies would be driven to protect themselves by diminishing the accommodation, and so force passengers to pay the higher rate of fares. He trusted their Lordships would not refuse their sanction to the decision of the Committee, as such a proceeding would be calculated to increase the difficulties already felt by Committees, and cause questions of this description to be withdrawn from the legitimate tribunals and bandied about and discussed among the Members of the House. EARL GREY said, he never wished to over-rule the decision of a Committee upon matters turning on considerations of detail; but it was the positive duty of the House to see that questions of principle received due consideration. It was perfectly clear from what had been said in LORD REDESDALE felt bound to prothe course of this discussion that the im- test against the principle of allowing a portance of maintaining the implied con- Company to raise its fares. Up to this tract between the companies and the pub-time he had always resisted any demand lic had not been duly considered. There were numbers of persons, clerks and others, who had fixed their residences along particular lines of railway on the faith of what they considered the scale of fares established by the companies. An increase of the travelling charges would be practically an increase of rent in the case of these persons, and would be manifestly unjust to the public. There could be no doubt whatever that the Brighton Company possessed exclusive control of their own district; and had the amount of capital expended by them in the construction of their railway been only proportioned to the requirements of the district and the actual cost of the line, they would now be dividing a handsome dividend. It was contrary to all sound policy to sanction an increase of fares under circumstances like the present, merely to earn a dividend upon the preference shares. EARL GRANVILLE said, he had come to the House not knowing how he should Fote upon the Question, and determined On Question, Resolved in the Negative. for such an increase; now, however, the demand had been granted in opposition to him, and he asked, -What am I to do next year? Parties will come asking for an increase of fares, the decision of the House will be quoted against me, and my hands will be tied. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons. PARLIAMENTARY REFORMREPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL-(No. 184.) (The Lord Privy Seal.) COMMITTEE. THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I do not desire to oppose or delay the progress of this Bill; but it seems to me, I must say, that we are not in a condition to-night to consider the Amendments which were printed only this morning. I ask any of your Lordships to look at these Amendments. They are so numerous that I have not counted them; but I think, at a rough THE EARL OF AIRLIE said, he had no objection to the course proposed by the noble Earl; but he wished it to be understood that this Bill would be taken the first thing on Friday night. computation, there are about fifty. One understood that we shall fully discuss this of these Amendments contains a proposal question of the boundaries of Glasgow. I of a most important character. It refers do not think the Government can consent to the representation of the great city of to put it off so long as the noble Earl asks Glasgow, and the intent of the Amend- us to do. We have a great deal of Busiment is no less than this-to extend the ness before the House; and I think if we Parliamentary boundaries of Glasgow, so put it off till Friday, we shall by that as to include within its limits a population, time have had sufficient time to obtain all as I am informed, of 62,000 persons who the information we may require. That, I are not now within them. Now, my think, will be the most convenient way Lords, this is not the first time the ques- for your Lordships to proceed. tion has been mooted. When the Bill came originally into the other House it proposed to extend the Parliamentary limits of Glasgow. A division took place in the Committee, and the Government were defeated; and now, after this decision of the House of Commons, leaving the boundaries of Glasgow as they are, the Bill having come up to your Lordships' House it is proposed not merely to reverse the decision of the other House, but it is proposed by this Amendment to include a very much larger population than the original draft of the Bill proposed to include. I hold in my hand a petition of the inhabitants of those burghs it is proposed to annex against the Amendment; but I do not want to go into the merits of the case now, for it is merely on the ground of time that I object to going into Committee; and I therefore propose that the Committee be postponed till Monday next. I THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: quite agree with the noble Earl that, owing to circumstances over which I had no control, these Papers have been laid upon your Lordships' table later than was intended, and certainly without giving your Lordships time to consider the Amendments. The fact is that the Amendments were sent to be printed on Friday night; but from some cause or other, which I have not ascertained, they have taken longer than usual to print. So far, however, was it from my wish to surprise your Lordships in any way, that I informed my noble Friend who manages the arrangements on the opposite side (the Earl of Bessborough) of the intention of the Government to renew this question, in order that he might communicate with his Friends on the subject. This particular clause is, however, the only one upon which the Amendment is of any importance. The others are merely verbal Amendments, and I shall recommend your Lordships to go into Committee and to proceed with the Bill in Committee; and then on the Report let it be THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Do I understand that the Bill is to be taken in Committee to-night, and the merely verbal Amendments agreed to, and that the Bill will be re-printed with these Amendments and reported to the House on Friday? This question of the boundaries of Glasgow is of considerable importance; and I hope, therefore, that it will be made the first Order of the Day. House in Committee (according to Order.) Clauses 1 to 26 agreed to, with verbal Amendments. Clause 27 (Qualifications for Members of General Councils). THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, he thought the words of the clause were very wide and liberal, but they omitted all mention of a new degree which a good many students were now beginning to take-he meant the degree of Bachelor of Science. He thought that those who had taken that degree should not be excluded from the franchise, and he would therefore move an Amendment supplying the omission. There was also another matter in this clause to which he wished to refer. Until four or five years ago there were two Universities at Aberdeen-that was to say, the two Colleges were both Universities, and both granted degrees. Now, however, they were united into one University, and had only one body which conferred degrees. It would be obviously wrong that those who had taken degrees from the two Colleges before they were united should be excluded from the franchise, but the wording of the clause would have that effect. He would therefore move words supplying the omission. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that as to the noble Duke's second Amendment there could be no objection, but it was pos- [ boroughs - Shoreham, Cricklade, Aylessible that some might arise with respect to bury, and East Retford-in which county the first. He thought, therefore, that the voters voted with a borough franchise; noble Duke had better give Notice, and and as it was observed that very few of postpone the Amendments until the Re- the new voters had been in time to be port was brought up. placed on the register, it might be proper even now to deprive each of those boroughs of a Member, and thus part of the required number of seven would be filled up. As time went on, the working of the Bill would be watched, and it might be considered as settled that bribery in small boroughs would be followed by total dis franchisement, which would afford vacancies for further representation. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL assented. Proviso agreed to, added to the Clause. Clause 42 (Certain Boroughs in England to cease to return Members). LORD LYVEDEN said, that on bringing up the Report he should call attention to the proposed disfranchisement of seven English boroughs in a Bill relating to the representation of Scotland, and should propose that, at least, some notice of this fact should be taken in the Preamble. This was one of the edicts of the other House, which their Lordships would be obliged to register now, though they refused to adopt a proposal of his to the same effect last year. Clause 48 (Corrupt Payment of Rates to be punishable as Bribery). THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, he did not wish their Lordships to pass a definition of a house which would exclude from the franchise persons resident in boroughs where there were no rates. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, he believed there were only two boroughs in that position, and he suggested that the matter should be allowed to stand over until the Report. Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 192.) LIQUIDATION BILL-(No. 181.) SECOND READING. LORD DENMAN said, the disfranchise. ment of these boroughs to give Members to Scotland was a departure from the principle asserted by the Government that no place should be wholly disfranchised. Mr. Wilkes, who had not been sufficiently acknowledged as the originator of Reform in 1776, had condemned the departure from the proportion of forty-five Members granted to Scotland by the 22nd Article of the Union. Since then, in 1832, eight new Members had been added, and now seven Members were to be taken from England and given to Scotland. He should have thought that on the probable discovery that the representation of minorities, which was only an experiment, did not answer, that fresh seats might hereafter have been found without depriving the small boroughs of their rights; at the same time, he considered that the temptations to bribery in very small places with enlarged constituencies were BO very strong that they might soon for--(The Lord Westbury.) feit their right of having representatives. He could not but remark on the inconvenience pointed out by the noble Viscount the Chairman of the Boundary Commission of the mixed constituencies of the four LORD WESTBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that of one its principal objects was to enable liquidators and assignees to apply securities to the redemption of claims of creditors without taking them into the market, and thereby reducing their value. until they had to be sold at low, and, perhaps, nominal prices. The distribution was to be made under a scheme prepared by the liquidators, and sanctioned by the Court of Chancery. Another portion of the Bill related to creditors holding securities by way of mortgage or pledge, and provided for the realization of property so held. The Bill would only apply to companies now in the course of liquidation. Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, the cases to which this Bill applied were of a very exceptional and peculiar kind, and he believed his noble and learned Friend was correct in stating that it would be utterly |