Lords Sitting of 30 June 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Courts of Law Fees, &c. (Scotland) * (189); County General Assessment (Scotland) * (190).
Second Reading—Vagrant Act Amendment * (138); Liquidation (181); Judgments Extension (160); Representation of the People (Ireland) (176).
Committee—Representation of the People (Scotland) (164–192); Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation * (158); Inclosure (No. 2) * (61); Local Government Supplemental (No. 4) * (165); Local Government Supplemental (No. 5) * (166).
Report—Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation * (158); lnclosure (No. 2) * (61); Local Government Supplemental (No. 4) * (165); Local Government Supplemental (No. 5)* (166).

LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE moved to leave out Clause 26, which empowered the Directors to raise the maximum rates of fares for passengers. The noble Marquess said he was no advocate for extremely low fares on railways; on the contrary, he admitted that they must be fixed at remunerative rates. But when a railway company had undertaken, with the sanction of Parliament, to make and maintain a railway at certain fares, an application by that company to raise the fares, which they themselves then fixed as sufficient, ought not to be acceded to without careful and close inquiry, in order to ascertain whether the demand had not its origin in mere reckless and extravagant management; and, above all, such a case as this ought not to be drawn into a precedent. Now, as far as he could discover, for the last twenty years this Bill had no precedent. And what were the grounds stated for the increase of fares? Only one such ground appeared on the face of the Bill. There might be other grounds, and he was sure the Committee had considered them well; but the Preamble only mentioned one.
  "Whereas," [it said,] "since the passing of the Act"—[meaning the Act of 1863]—"circumstances have become materially altered, and the Company have been involved in a large expenditure, and it is expedient that the Company be authorized to increase to a small extent the tolls and charges for passengers limited by that Act."
  354
  But then the question arose how this expenditure had been incurred, and what was the position of the Company. If this expenditure had been incurred not through any reckless extravagance on the part of the Directors, but legitimately for the purposes of the railway and the service of the public, and if the railway had been discreetly managed without blame to the Directors, then a primâ facie case was made out for an increased tariff. Their Lordships would see how this was. Up to 1863 the tolls on the London and Brighton line were higher than were fixed by this Bill; but in that year a competing scheme was proposed for the construction of a line called, he believed, the Beckenham, Lewes, and Brighton line. The Directors, in consequence, voluntarily offered to reduce their fares, and did so; and the competing line did not pass. Was this reduction of fares conditional? No; it was absolute. Beckenham line or no Beckenham line, it was to be made. To show that, he would quote the evidence given by Mr. Slight, late Secretary of the Company, before the Committee of the House of Commons, to which the Beckenham, Lewes, and Brighton Bill was referred in the Session of 1863. The report of the examination was as follows:—
  "Mr. ROUND: Is there a resolution about reducing the rates?—I have the full authority of the Board in this matter to act in this Committee Room.
  "By the COMMITTEE: Have you any authority to communicate to this Committee any decision of the Board with regard to the future, or any pledge to give on their part as to the future?—Yes, I think I may say I have. Not in the form of a resolution of the Board?—Of course, if that question is put to me I am bound to say—, but I am speaking in the presence of three Directors, and there is no doubt about the fact.
  "Mr. HOPE SCOTT: You are speaking in the presence of three Directors, and you are aware that what you say will be taken down?—Yes, certainly. You are aware, also, that being taken down it may at any time be quoted against the Brighton Company?—Yes, and quoted against me. Now, under that responsibility, will you say to the Committee what you are prepared and consider yourself authorized by the Board to state to the Committee as to the rates?—I think the question which was put to me was whether I was authorized to pledge the Board and the Company, not to increase the present adopted schedule of rates? I have full authority from the Board to give that pledge in the name of the Company."
  By these representations, then, the Company succeeded in their opposition to the Bill, and the reduced rate of fares was retained up to the present time. In 1866 a competing line was again proposed, but

  355
  it was ultimately given up, and the Brighton Company retained their monopoly. The inhabitants of Brighton were therefore still dependent upon one line, and they depended upon the Parliamentary pledge and engagement entered into by the Company. To get rid of the Beckenham, Lewes, and Brighton line the Company were read to adhere to their reduced rates; but now, having a perfect monopoly and having no dread of competition, the Company asked Parliament to enable them to raise their fares and to make the burdens on the customers of the railway greater than they had ever been before. Looking at the broad facts, he thought their Lordships would pause before they passed the Bill in its present shape. How many railways of the country could adopt the language of the Preamble of this Bill? Or, rather, how many were there that were not in a position to adopt it? How many were there that had not been invoked in expenditure that had not been profitable, either to themselves or the public? If this Bill were passed, in the absence of any special circumstance to justify it, other companies would be put-tins in a similar claim, to the great disturbance of the commerce of the country and to the great increase of the tax which locomotion imposed upon it. The general receipts of railways had not increased as they ought to have done; and he was afraid that that indicated a comparative diminution of the trade of the country, upon which the cost of locomotion was really an inland duty. He believed that the gross amount paid by the public to the railway companies was not less than £38,000,000 annually. He warned the House to pause before making a precedent which might be injurious to the country.
  Moved, "To leave out Clause 26."—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
  LORD CAMOYSsaid, that, as Chairman of the Select Committee, he was quite prepared to defend the decision it arrived at, and suggested that if the House did not approve that, decision, the proper course was to refer the Bill back to that Select Committee. He denied that any pledge had been given by the Company which ought to preclude it for ever from raising its tolls. It should be remembered that the proposed scale of fares was lower than the scale which was authorized from 1846 to 1868. During that period the first-class express, second-Class express, first-
  356
  class ordinary, second-class ordinary, and third-class rates of fares were respectively as follows:—3d., 3d., 2 2–5d., 1 4–5d., and 1 1–5d. per mile; in 1863 the rates were 2½d., 2d., 2d., 1½d., and 1d.; and the scale proposed in the Bill was 2¾d., 2¼d., 2¼d., 2¾d., and 1d. This scale gave a small increase of ¼d. per mile for first and second-class passengers—there being no alteration as regards third-class passengers—beyond the amount which, by an Act of 1863, the Company were authorized to take. The scale authorized by the Act of 1863 was a considerable reduction on the scale which the Company were then, and from the time of the passing of their Act of incorporation of 1846, authorized to take, and it was a reduction which the Company volunteered as a concession to induce Parliament not to sanction a competing line to Brighton. But in a subsequent Session (1866), Parliament did sanction the competing line, after the Company had been put to an enormous expense, in the vain attempt to uphold the decision of 1863. It was, therefore, submitted by the Company that if the adoption of the toils of 1863 could originally have been considered as a contract between the Company and Parliament, the contract was put an end to by the action of Parliament. The Company were in 1863 supposed to be in a much better financial condition than, in fact, they were, as subsequent investigation had shown; and they had since laid out very large sums of capital in station and other accommodation on the main line for the benefit of the public, upon which they did not get any adequate return;—and indeed the net income for the lust year (1867) proved to be insufficient by upwards of £100,000 to pay preference charges. It was manifestly for the interest of the public that railways should be efficiently maintained, and it was impossible to secure that object unless a reasonable sum was received in the shape of tolls. The Company were not asking Parliament to restore the full amount of tolls authorized before 1863; they asked only an increase equal to about half of that reduction, and this only on the first and second-class passengers. They asked no alteration at all as regards third-class passengers, or animals or goods. The promoters submitted that the scale proposed was a very moderate scale, and below the ordinary standard. It was much lower than the authorized maximum charges of the

  357
  South-Western, South-Eastern, Chatham, 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—
  "The reduction of 1863 proves to be more than the undertaking can bear—the resumption of half 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 nil 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 FORTESCUEsaid, 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-
  358
  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.
  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 15 s., and the second-class 11 s. In July, 1867, however, they were reduced to 8s. 10 d. 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 RICHMONDsaid, 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-

  359
  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 ¼d. 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
  360
  the public, he hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Motion of the noble Marquess.
  LORD REDESDALEregretted 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 companies of the country. This was a question of principle, in which the House had a right to interfere, and he should certainly 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 TAUNTONconcurred 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 practice 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-

  361
  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 ALDERLEYthought 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 GREYsaid, 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 the course of this discussion that the importance of maintaining the implied contract between the companies and the public 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 GRANVILLEsaid, he had come to the House not knowing how he should vote upon the Question, and determined
  362
  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 CLEVELANDthought 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 CLANRICARDEsaid, the case resolved itself into this—that 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.
  On Question, Resolved in the Negative.
  On Question, That the Bill do pass,
  LORD REDESDALEfelt bound to protest against the principle of allowing a Company to raise its fares. Up to this time he had always resisted any demand 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 REFORM—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 164.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 164.)

  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

  363
  computation, there are about fifty. One of these Amendments contains a proposal of a most important character. It refers to the representation of the great city of Glasgow, and the intent of the Amendment is no less than this—to extend the Parliamentary boundaries of Glasgow, so as to include within its limits a population, as I am informed, of 62,000 persons who: ire not now within them. Now, my Lords, this is not the first time the question 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, hut 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.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I 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 (his 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
  364
  understood that we shall fully discuss this question of the boundaries of Glasgow. I do not think the Government can consent to put it off so long as the noble Earl asks us to do. We have a great deal of Business before the House; and I think if we put it off till Friday, we shall by that time have had sufficient time to obtain all the information we may require. That, I think, will be the most convenient way for your Lordships to proceed.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, 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.
  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 ARGYLLsaid, 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 CHANCELLORsaid, that as to the noble Duke's second Amendment

  365
  there could be no objection, but it was possible that some might arise with respect to the first. He thought, therefore, that the noble Duke had better give Notice, and postpone the Amendments until the Report was brought up.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLassented.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORproposed to add the following proviso:—
  "Provided always that no graduate of any University shall be disqualified from being a member of the General Council of such University by reason of this being enrolled as a student in any class of the University."
  Proviso agreed to, added to the Clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 42 (Certain Boroughs in England to cease to return Members).
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, 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.
  LORD DENMANsaid, the disfranchisement 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 so very strong that they might soon forfeit 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
  366
  boroughs—Shoreham, Cricklade, Aylesbury, and East Retford—in which county voters voted with a borough franchise; and as it was observed that very few of the new voters had been in time to be 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 disfranchisement, which would afford vacancies for further representation.
  Clause 48 (Corrupt Payment of Rates to be punishable as Bribery).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, 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 CHANCELLORsaid, 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.)
(The Lord Westbury.)
LIQUIDATION BILL—(No. 181.)

  SECOND READING.
  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 Westbury.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, 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

  367
  impossible to conduct and finally execute the winding-up of such cases without the aid of some exceptional power unknown to the Common Law and inapplicable to ordinary cases. As the Bill was to be confined to the peculiar cases referred to, it ought, in his opinion, to receive their Lordships' assent.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

JUDGMENTS EXTENSION BILL.
(The Lord, Chelmsford)
JUDGMENTS EXTENSION BILL.

  (NO. 160.) SECOND READING.
  LORD CHELMSFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the measure, which was to render the judgments or decrees of certain Courts in England, Scotland, and Ireland effectual in all parts of the United Kingdom. At present, if a creditor recovered a judgment in one part of the United Kingdom, and the debtor withdrew to another part, the judgment could not be made effectual; but the creditor was compelled, if he wished to follow his debtor, to commence a fresh action, and obtain another judgment in that part of the kingdom to which the debtor had retired. Prior to the year 1857, several Bills were introduced into the other House to alter this unsatisfactory state of things; but all those measures were rejected in consequence of a fear prevalent among the Irish Members that the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts would be unduly interfered with. No change had been attempted since 1857 until the present Session, when the present Bill was brought into the House of Commons, and referred to a Select Committee, among the Members of which were the late and the present Attorney General for Ireland, and the late and the present Lord Advocate. Ultimately, it passed the lower House without any division at all.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a (Lord Chelmsford.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he saw no objection to the measure, which would really tend to consolidate the three different portions of the kingdom by making a judgment obtained in one enforcible into the other two.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—RESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 176.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—RESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 176.)

  SECOND READING.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, I believe your Lordships will not expect that I shall now enter into any lengthened explanation of its provisions. I need only remind your Lordships that in the year 1850 Parliament had made great progress in the reform of the Irish representation, while no corresponding measure has been passed until last Session for this country. The Bill will therefore make very little alteration in the Irish franchise. It will leave the county franchise unchanged at its present amount of £12, and it will lower the borough franchise from £8 to £4. This arrangement will practically give household suffrage to all who pay rates in boroughs in Ireland—for in Ireland those persons whose houses are worth less than £4 are not liable to the payment of the rate, which is paid by the lessor. The provisions with respect to the county franchise and the borough franchise are the two main points in the measure. I propose that your Lordships should go into Committee on the Bill on Monday next.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought the noble Earl might have given them some further explanations with respect to the Bill, and more particularly in reference to their abandonment of that doctrine on the subject of the "hard and fast line" on which, they had insisted in dealing with the subject of Reform in this country. But their Lordships might enter into the general subject, if they should think proper, on the Motion for going into Committee on Monday next.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.