said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government have had in contemplation the introduction of a measure to alter the present system of assessing Income Tax in country towns and districts by the aid of secret Commissioners selected from the district; whether, in the event of no legislative proceedings being contemplated, the Government have the power, without Parliamentary sanction, to alter the present much complained of sytem of secret Local Income Tax Commissioners; and whether, if they have the power, the Government intend to make any alteration in this respect?

, in reply, said he supposed that by the term "Secret Commissioners" the I hon. Member meant the Commissioners I who took an oath of secresy not to divulge any matters they became acquainted with in the discharge of their duty. Those Secret Commissioners were selected by the whole body of Commissioners from among themselves, and the Government had nothing to do with them. He was not aware of the existence of any general discontent at the mode of their appointment, or the manner in which they performed their duty. He was aware that in the hon. Member's neighbourhood there was some agitation a few months ago in connection I with the Income tax, but he hoped that agitation was now allayed. From inquiries ho had made lie had reason to believe that it arose more from objections to the Income Tax itself than to those who assessed it. The Government saw no reason to make any change in the law regarding the appointment of the Commissioners.

said, he would beg to ask if the names of the Commissioners will be published in future? their names were not known.

said, he was not aware that their names were kept secret.

said, as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated last night that, considering the great opposition that was offered to the measure, the Government had come to the determination of no longer asking hon. Members to put themselves to the inconvenience of attending the House for the further consideration of the Bill; he should, in accordance with that Resolution, move that the Older be discharged.

extremely regretted that the Bill was to be withdrawn; but, under the circumstances, he admitted that the Government had no other alternative than to give it up, considering the shortness of the time now at their disposal and the vigorous nature of the opposition to the measure. He had been taxed with being the author of the Bill; but he distinctly denied that such was the case. If he had been its author, he should have tried to make it a national and not a metropolitan measure; and if any compensation was to be paid he thought it should be paid out of the national Exchequer, instead of the payment being imposed on the metropolis. The Bill never was, in his opinion, a strong Bill; it was weakened in the Select Committee and rendered still more feeble in the House; but he hoped that the Vice President of the Council would not during the Recess listen to any request from any quarter to relax the present restrictions in the metropolitan area, if he wished to keep the cattle plague out of the country. With respect to two or three countries where rinderpest had never existed, he did not see why the same exception should not be extended to Denmark (proper), Sweden, and Norway, as had already been made in favour of Spain and Portugal.

said, that what had just fallen from the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Read) did justice to the views of those who opposed the Bill, because he had conceded the point they had been struggling for. It was only because the principle of the Act of last year was attempted to be departed from that the House became embarrassed by the course pursued by the Government. He was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in withdrawing the Bill frankly recognized the grounds on which its opponents had thought right to discuss it, and admitted that the Government were not at first fully made aware of the true bearings of the case. With respect to the financial part of the scheme, it would have been a deplorable example, if Parliament had exercised its authority to confiscate property without providing compensation, and it was a great proof of the wisdom of the rules under which the Business of the House was conducted, that a minority, powerful in argument, reason, and justice—["Oh, oh!"]—could withstand any sudden impulse by which the majority were overtaken to carry a measure pregnant with injustice and wrong. ["Oh !"] The minority upon this question represented the majority of the people. ["No, no!"]

begged to suggest to the House whether it was desirable after the ample discussion that had taken place upon the Bill to further prolong it?

said, he should certainly protest against the manner in which the Bill had been withdrawn after the majorities which voted in its favour; and he protested the more so because it tended to confirm the suspicion which all along existed on the independent Conservative Benches that it was never intended that the Bill should pass. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) said the minority which opposed the Bill represented the majority of the people, but that was not so—on the contrary the hon. and learned Gentleman represented only the London importers and butchers. There was a very large majority of the people of this kingdom in favour of it. It had, too, with one exception, the support of the Irish Members, who were anxious to save the country from the recurrence of a calamity which had cost Great Britain it was said £12,000,000, and from which they had preserved themselves by their own exertions and determination. There was no force in the arguments which were directed against the principle of this measure, but it was opposed on the pretence that it was so badly drawn, it could not work, and that it threw expense on localities that were not fairly liable. But the Government could have easily improved any objectionable provisions, leaving the Bill sufficient for its purpose, and supplied the very small sum of money which it was clear from the statements made, that speculators would undertake it was but trifling, if indeed required at all. But supposing these objections to be well-founded it was clear that if the Bill had failed it had fallen through solely on account of its imperfect nature and the apathy of the promoters. Every expedient was resorted to to waste the time of the House, and iteration and re-iteration proceeded to such lengths that the hon. and learned Gentleman repeated the same sentence eleven times over. The hon. and learned Gentleman also counted out the House. Now, he (General Dunne) did not object to the tactics of the minority; but he did regret that the Bill should have had to be rejected on account of the incapacity with which it was framed.

thanked the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Read) for the advice which he had given to the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) with respect to relaxing the rule so far as to admit cattle from the countries where no plague existed, and he expressed a hope that it would be adopted by the noble Lord. He would nuclei take that, so far as it was in his power, there should be no stretch of any relaxations for an improper purpose at the port of Hull.

trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be induced to introduce a measure on this important subject next Session. As a Member of the Committee which sat for several days during the dog-days, and with what result they then saw, he would venture to say the great evil of their Bill was the very system of which the hon. Member for East Norfolk desired the extension; it was the fear lest the Privy Council should step in and relax the restrictions that indisposed the City Corporation to become the market authority. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could levy a sum of one or two sovereigns upon every hon. Member who repeated his arguments, as had been done during the discussion of this Bill, he would soon have sufficient funds for the construction of the market.

observed that in the discussions of last night it became manifest that the present system was liable to the grossest imputations of malversation. Over and over again the Government were accused of jobbing; and that suspicion was inseparable from proceedings by Orders in Council. He expressed a hope that a Bill would be introduced upon this subject at the earliest possible period; and better framed and better financially supported than this had been. Legislation was necessary for the protection of this country against the cattle plague, which he was afraid was spreading on the Continent. It was of the greatest importance that protection in this country from rinderpest should be established by Act of Parliament, and not by Orders in Council. He hope that Government would not be discouraged by their present position, and would renew their attempt to establish efficient means of inspection, for which the natural position of the country gave every facility.

said, he could answer for his constituents that they would not abuse any relaxation of the existing rules which might be granted to them. On a former occasion he suggested the withdrawal of the Bill, because it would be impossible to work it. He felt gratified that the Government had come to that determination, and lie hoped it would be found that the powers at present possessed by the Privy Council would be found sufficient.

said, he hoped the Privy Council would not relax their regulations with regard to cattle during the Recess; and if the Government did not possess sufficiently stringent powers he hoped they would obtain them before they prorogued Parliament. When the rinderpest first broke out several deputations from Oxfordshire waited upon the Government, and they left with the impression that if they had the power they had not the inclination to put it into effect.

said, he could not allow the Motion for discharging the Order to pass without protesting in the strongest manner against such a proceeding on the part of the Government, and calling on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the absence of the Prime Minister, for an explanation of the extraordinary conduct which they had thought fit to pursue in the matter. He (Mr. Blake) considered' that he had a right quite as much as any one in the House to make this demand. He had supported the Government through out on the Bill, had remained up often until two, and even past three in the morning, to assist them; had laboured, and, he might add, successfully too, to induce Irish Liberal Members to swell the large majorities which they had on every division up to the very last. He was disappointed and surprised beyond description at the withdrawal of the Bill, when there was an absolute certainty that, if persevered in, it would be carried. He was thunderstruck when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced, at nearly four o'clock that morning, to a House of not a dozen Members, that Government had resolved to abandon the Bill. What the real reason for the Ministry taking this step was he was at a loss to divine. It was not on account of not having a majority to carry it, as they had even in the last division defeated their opponents by nearly 3 to 1. It was absurd to say that it was from an apprehension that persons having just claims to compensation would run any risk of not receiving it, as he was informed that persons of responsibility had undertaken to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to run all risk with regard to the market. Now that undertaking, of course, included every liability, compensation as well as everything else. ["Name !"] The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew who they were, and that they were good security for what they proposed, and he challenged him to deny the accuracy of the statement lie had made. He supported the Bill mainly because he thought it would prove a useful measure for Ireland. Irish cattle that came to London were placed in the same position as foreign cattle coming from diseased districts, and bad to be slaughtered in London often at a great loss to the owners, who, at times, could sell them at greater profit in some of the markets around London. It was thus a great disadvantage also to the English dealers, who were deprived of the opportunity of purchasing Irish cattle in the London market. If his assertion was correct—and he again demanded from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a direct answer as to whether it was or was not—the conduct of the Government was most reprehensible in sacrificing, without sufficient cause, a most useful measure, and in throwing over himself and others who had most gallantly fought for them. Unless the Chancellor properly explained the matter, he could assure him it would be a long time before he would support him on any question again.

wished only to make one suggestion, which he was sure the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) would take in good part—that if he drew up a new Bill, its provisions should be confined to cattle from suspected countries. If this were done there would very soon be no suspected countries. The two principal countries suspected were Holland and Prussia, both of which had a very valuable trade with us in their own cattle; and if they found that this trade was stopped because they allowed cattle from infected countries to pass through them, they would soon see the expediency of ceasing to do so. The proposed new market would then be superfluous, or could be made supplementary to the present market.

said, it was most unusual, on the Motion for the withdrawal of a Bill, that there should be a sustained debate on the subject of it. He should not have taken part in the discussion but for the observations of the hon. Member for Waterford. (Mr. Blake), and the hon. and gallant Member for Queen's County (General Dunne). It must be obvious to every impartial mind that the Government had used its most strenuous endeavours to carry through the Bill, and they had been driven at the last moment to abandon it from the insuperable obstacles which it had met with in its progress through the House. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Waterford, he stated last night that he understood parties were prepared to find the money for the construction of the market; but, in the communications he had with them, compensations were not included. Compensations were merely alluded to in that sort of conversation one beard in the Lobby. The City authorities declining to become the market authority, the financial difficulty assumed greater importance than before. The financial bearings of the measure were then very different from what they were when it went before the Committee. He repeated that every effort had been made to carry the Bill, and the suspicions which his hon. and gallant Friend (General Dunne) had expressed as to the want of sincerity on the part of the Government were in this case wholly unfounded.

was as much surprised as anyone could be at the withdrawal of the Bill, but, At the same time, he must say that the Government had fought the battle both ably and manfully. He hoped it would go to the country who were the parties who had obstructed the Bill. It was most unjust to charge those who approved of the Rill of a desire to increase the price of meat; no such intention had ever been entertained, and it was unfair and unjust to make such statements. The Bill was rendered necessary from a fear of the return of the disease to this country.

proposed, after Clause 19, to insert the following:—

"The Company shall not, except under an insurance as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay any larger sums than the following in respect of any passenger killed or injured: (that is to say,) no greater sum in respect of any first-class passenger than four hundred pounds, in respect of any second-class passenger than three hundred pounds, in respect of any third-class passenger than two hundred pounds; but any sum so payable shall be in addition to any claim under an insurance."

A vast amount of evidence upon this subject was taken before the Royal Commissioners. Immense frauds were practised upon railway companies under the present system. A case had recently come under his own personal notice. A man, who was injured in a railway accident in the North of England, claimed £8,000 damages, and he laid his damages in an action in one of the Scotch Courts at £5,000; on the eve of the trial he offered to accept £1,750. The company paid £250 into Court, and the jury awarded him £88. That was the case of a person injured under circumstances where there was really no negligence on the part of the company; and it was only by having a detective to watch his motions for three months, that the company had been able to resist the fraud he had attempted to practise upon them. Besides, great injustice was done to the companies in another way. The position of railway companies was this—that whereas they received the same sum for fare from a poor person as from a person with an income of £10,000 a year, yet in case of au accident they had to compensate the latter according to his social position. Not one in ton of these compensation cases ever came before the public. The expenses attending trials were so great that the companies were driven to settle the great bulk of claims privately. This subject had been inquired into by the Royal Commission, who recommended that compensation should be awarded without relation to the income or social position of the party injured except so far as these might be indicated by the class of carriage in which he travelled. It had been said that there was no precedent for such a provision as that contained in the clause, but the Legislature had already interposed for the protection of carriers, both by sea and by land. The clause was founded upon the recommendations of the Commissioners, and as far as the figures were concerned he should be ready, on the part of railway companies, to assent to any alterations that the Government might propose, and to accept an absolute responsibility on their part for all injuries that occurred by accidents on their lines, whether occasioned by their negligence or not, to the extent of £400 for first-class, £300 for second-class, and £200 for third-class passengers. By a subsequent clause he proposed to render it compulsory upon the companies, should they be required by passengers to do so, to insure their lives to the extent of £3,000 for a first-class, £2,000 for a second-class, and £1,000 for a third-class passenger. He now moved the first part of the clause.

said, this was a very difficult question. The hon. and learned Member had stated the case very ably on the part of the railway companies, and it could not be denied that excessive damages had been awarded in many instances. It was also true that the principle of limitation of liability had been conceded in the case of shipowners who were not actually in fault, where the liability, under certain circumstances, was confined to £15 a ton up to the value of the ship; so with regard to animals, by the Railway and Canal Act of 1854 as the hon. Member had stated, and in the more parallel case of the Metropolitan Railway Acts of 1864 which he had not mentioned, where the liability with respect to injury to passengers by cheap trains was limited to £100. On the other hand, it must be remembered that carriers of passengers were not like carriers of goods, insurers against all injuries except those by the act of God or the Queen's enemies. They did not undertake to carry with absolute safety, but only so far as human care and foresight would go. Consequently, the only injuries for which they were liable were those which were caused by negligence or misconduct, in itself no unimportant limitation. The principle of legislation had been to leave to railway managers the greatest freedom of action. The Board of Trade had no real control over them, and it was considered that the true safeguard of the public was the fear of heavy damages. As a witness said before a Select Committee on Railway Accidents, "Lord Campbell's Act was the only protection of the passenger." A Bill was brought in with the same object as these clauses in 1863, which was rejected by the House, and called "an appraisement of human life according to the valuation of railway directors." It was true that the Royal Commission reported in favour of limitation of liability; but then it also recommended that railway companies should be liable for all accidents, whether caused by negligence or not. The hon. Member had stated he was willing to accept this recommendation, but he perhaps did not know what had been mentioned to himself by an eminent Member of that Commission, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, that the ideas of the Commissioners as to compensation went far beyond this Amendment, and it was obvious that in this case much more difficulty would arise in framing a scale, because not only would it be necessary to appreciate the value of life, but the calculation of the amount of penalty for negligence or misconduct would be mixed up with it. Then it seemed to him that the principle of insurance was altogether misapplied in extending it to damages for wrong done. The true principle was that the insurer or underwriter received payment for assuming a liability to which he was not legally subject. But in this case he demanded payment for assuming a liability under which he already lay, and he asked the passenger to pay him for insur- ing him against his own wrongful acts. Then, again, there was no provision for securing the existence of such an insurance fund in the case of the insolvency of the company. The last objection which he would take was, that whereas all carriers, shipowners, coach proprietors—and there were still some coaches left—and others were subject to the Common Law as extended in its application by Lord Campbell's Act, this proposed relaxation applied only to railway companies. Now, it was clear that they ought not to be specially exempted; and yet—as no doubt the hon. and learned Member felt—a general exemption would be beyond the scope of this Bill. Under the circumstances, he thought the hon. and learned Member would do well not to press these clauses, as it was evident they were too partial in their application, and he did not think the feeling of the country was at present in favour of an alteration of the law in this direction.

said, he thought the latter argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Cave) the only forcible one. He admitted that a law should not be made for railway companies which did not apply to coach proprietors and carriers generally. The railway companies desired nothing but what was fair and reasonable; and he, for one, would rather see the figures fixed by Government. The railway companies wished to do all that was possible to ensure the safety of the passengers. He asked the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Leeman) to withdraw the clause, with a view to the introduction of a Bill, in the next Session of Parliament, on the whole subject of the responsibility to make good damages arising from accidents while travelling.

hoped that if the Government did undertake to consider the subject during the Recess they would not be regarded as pledged to accept the principle of the clauses. He did not wish to see the settlement of claims taken away from the cognizance of juries. The subject was a large and difficult one. He could not conceive anything more objectionable than that every time a man went a journey he should be obliged to pay 6d. to prevent his neck being broken. It was enough to frighten the nervous; and if it were carried the railway company ought to be compelled to give with the insurance receipt a glass of very good brandy to keep up the spirits of the passengers. What was wanted was vigilance on the part of the railway company to compel their servants to prevent accidents. If the company wanted funds it would be better for them to put an extra small amount on the price of the railway ticket.

said, that Lord Campbell's Act had acted most injuriously upon passenger traffic in steam vessels, for many shipowners now refused to carry passengers upon any terms, for fear of the liability which that Act threw upon them in the event of an accident ensuing.

pointed out that it was a common practice for passengers to insure their own lives when travelling by railway.

said, he was in favour of a high minimum of compensation without relation to the class of carriage by which the person who was injured might travel. It should be put upon a general average.

expressed himself satisfied with the assurance that had been given on the part of the Government, and withdrew his clauses.

said, he had no objection to the reference to the masters of the Court of Queen's Bench; but he objected to the extension of the subject beyond railway companies, and suggested the omission of the words "or any corporation."

seconded the clause.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had on this occasion showed more good sense than ho exhibited when lust he pressed a similar clause on the attention of the House. Were the hon. and learned Gentleman now prepared to pursue the same course, he (Mr. Blake) should have to appeal to the House to reject his clause. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole) said that the Waterford and Limerick Railway did everything it could to inconvenience the traffic of the country. Now what were the facts? The company referred to were working this line at a small profit to the shareholders, and on the Ennis line, in which the hon. Members for Clare and Ennis were interested, the traffic was conducted at a loss. He would add, too, that the line was kept up almost exclusively at the expense of a private individual, a friend of his own. He would like to ask the hon. Members who I were in favour of having this line worked on Sundays what number of shares they had in it?

None at all.

None at all.

remarked that he thought that was the case. His hon. Friends were, doubtless, too sensible to invest their money in a speculation in which they would be unable to get a return for it, and yet they expected that that private gentleman to whom he referred, who worked the line for six days in the week at a loss, should work it on the seventh also, and that too for their own convenience when travelling about to sec their constituents. It was a thing altogether unjustifiable that the 800 employés of that railway group should all be kept on duty during the Sunday in order to suit the convenience of some five-and-twenty persons who might travel just as well if they chose on the other days of the week. As there was no such law in force in England as that which his hon. and learned Friend desired to introduce in Ireland, he hoped the House would not sanction the proposition.

observed that the law was the same in both countries. Neither in England nor in Ireland were companies compelled to run trains on Sundays. But it was provided that if any railway company ran a passenger train at all on Sunday it should also run a cheap train. He thought it better to leave the law as it stood. Such an alteration as the hon. and learned Baronet proposed would lead to great dissatisfaction in many quarters.

then moved the following clause:—

"And all Railway Companies shall, from and after the passing of this Act, in every passenger train where there are more carriages than one of each class, provide smoking compartments for each class of passengers."

It was most desirable that the House should agree to this clause, as the inconvenience of the existing system respecting smoking in railway carriages was generally felt by persons travelling by railways.

opposed the clause, and thought that the better course would be to leave the matter in the hands of the directors of railway companies, who would always be sure to do that which was roost convenient to the great body of those who travelled by their respective lines. If the House agreed to this clause the railway companies would be obliged to have smoking carriages attached to every train passing along their lines. This would lead to great expense, and would not be just to the companies.

thought that in the case of the main lines of the principal companies the custom already prevailed of providing smoking carriages; but on many of the cross country lines they were unnecessary; and it would be a cause of great expense if all companies, under all circumstances, were compelled to find special and separate accommodation for smokers. He thought that the better way would be for the House to leave the whole subject to be regulated by railway directors, who would, he was sure, do that which was most acceptable to the great body of the passengers using their lines.

said, he was decidedly in favour of the clause, for he considered the proposal to provide smoking carriages on railway trains would be a great convenience, not only to those who desired to enjoy smoking, but to those who were opposed to its indulgence. He thought that they were by no means justified in leaving this matter in the hands of railway directors, who certainly were seldom distinguished by the desire to accommodate the public. The example of the Belgian and French railway companies in the providing of smoking carriages had hitherto been thrown away upon English directors, and they had been generally deaf to the repealed representations both of individuals and of the public Press. He could see no sort of objection to the adoption of the clause.

opposed the clause, and said, that the principle of having smoking carriages upon the Belgian and other foreign lines had not given such general satisfaction as was supposed. He had been as much inconvenienced by smoking in carnages which were not set apart for that purpose as in those that were. He thought that the matter should be left in the hands of the directors of railway companies, and that it would be impolitic to legislate upon this subject in the manner proposed. He objected to the clause altogether. It would lead to great expense to railway companies,; for it was to be recollected that it was not that only one compartment was to be provided for the use of smokers on one particular train, but that each class in each train should be provided with such compartments.

supported the clause, and believed that it would be regarded as great a convenience to the non smoker as it would be to those who smoked.

contended that the connivance at smoking by the directors was a breach of contract with those passengers who did not smoke.

said, that the way in which the by-laws of the railway companies in reference to smoking in railway carriages had been systematically violated, and which caused much inconvenience to passengers, made it most desirable that some plan should be adopted by which the inconvenience could be got rid of and thought that the plan proposed by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) was the best that could be devised on the subject.

also supported the clause, on the ground that it would be convenient to non-smokers as well as smokers.

said, he thought this clause would tend to prevent smoking rather than to facilitate it, because the smoking department would be reduced to its narrowest limits; and when that was full passengers would be allowed to smoke in no other. He thought that the subject was one which ought to be left to the directors of railways to settle; for he believed that those directors were in the habit of providing smoking carriages when it was proved to them that the passengers using their lines were desirous of having them.

supported the clause. He could not understand the objection to the proposal before the House on the ground of expense, seeing that there was only to be one compartment for smoking attached to each train. He did not endorse the opinion given by the hon. Member (Mr. Gilpin) in reference to smoking on railways on the Continent. There the existing regulations on the subject were very inconvenient. It occurred in his case that a young gentleman travelling in the same carriage asked him if he objected to his smoking a cigar? He (Mr. Griffith) declined to reply to the question, which had the double effect of making him appear discourteous and of causing the young gentleman to manifest annoyance during the remainder of the journey.

thought that the permission sought to be given to smokers travelling by railways, by the proposal before the House, was right and proper; and, for the reasons which had been already urged by hon. Members who had preceded him, he thought that the permission was especially desirous in the case of passengers going long journeys; but he thought that smoking compartments should be in connection with the hindermost carriages.

said, he did not think smokers had justice done to them. He must say, so far as his own experience was concerned, he had never seen any gentleman smoking in a railway carriage who, if the practice were objected to, was not ready to discontinue it. Where that was not the case, railway companies had ample powers to enforce their penalties.

suggested that, as the question under consideration was one that interested all persons travelling by railways, it would be bettor to leave it to be settled between the Board of Trade, and the directors of railways, who, after consultation, might be able to come to some understanding on the subject. There were difficulties to be overcome, and these would be more easily obviated by such an arrangement than by the adoption of a "hard and fast line," as proposed by this clause.

said, he believed that three-fourths of the men who travelled by railway were smokers; and he feared there was too much truth in the representation that any arrangement such as was suggested by this clause was sure to be objected to by Directors, because it touched their pockets. If, however, those who represented the Board of Trade and the railway authorities would take this matter in hand and pledge themselves adequately to meet the convenience of the public, he would recommend his hon. Friend (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) to withdraw the clause.

would rank himself among the non-smokers, and he thought there was very considerable inconvenience in the present system. It was unreasonable that people should be put in the position of either suffering great annoyance or appearing churlishly to interfere with the enjoyment of others. He thought the railway companies had been backward in consulting the convenience of the public in this respect. He should be happy to do all in his power to press on railway com- panies the absolute necessity of making some arrangements to meet the public complaints, and if they did not agree to do so, he would next Session support the hon. Gentleman in his efforts to obtain what must be admitted to be a consideration in railway travelling.

said, he must altogether decline to leave the matter in the hands of railway directors, and would therefore press the clause to a division.

then said, that it ought to be inserted in the clause the day when it was to come into operation.

objected to this addition that it would undo all that had already been agreed to. He had no objection to adopt a suggestion suggested by the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir Column O'Loghlen), that the arrangement should begin on the 1st of October.

said, that there ought to be some limitation in regard to the application of the clause, for if it was made obligatory in respect to small lines of railways it would operate very oppressively.

thought there should be a dispensing power in the Board of Trade.

suggested that the words "unless exempted by the Board of Trade "would meet the difficulty—for this would make it obligatory on railway companies generally to have these smoking compartments attached to their trains, whereas, in the case of certain small railways, the Board of Trade would have an opportunity of excusing them if it thought fit to do so.

then framed his Amendment in accordance with the suggestion, and also added the words "first of October" as the period when the clause would come into operation, instead of "from and after the passing of this Act"—the original words in the clause.

then moved that the following clause be added to the Bill:—

"It shall not be lawful for any Railway Company to increase any existing rate or charge, without having previously given three months' public notice of their intention so to do."

objected to the clause.

also objected to the clause, on the ground that it would throw an obstacle in the way of the reduction of the charges, which would be kept at a higher rate than they would be if the companies could raise them when they found the rate did not pay. The Parliamentary limits could not be exceeded in any case.

said, it was the most unjust clause ever submitted to the House.

hoped, under all the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman would withdraw it.

said, he would withdraw the clause.