session, containing nine sub-sections, by which the second
section of the act of 1854 is explained and amended (for
which see p. 23). (4) Immediate reduction of rates and
fares was a matter which the committee thought was
merely temporary. A charge which would give the com-
pany ample profit to-day might, through increased eco-
nomy, be excessive to-morrow. At the same time the
committee recommended that full opportunity should be
given on every occasion presented, by amalgamation, bills
of hearing and redressing any specific complaint that
might be made with respect to existing rates and fares;
and for this purpose care should be taken that traders or
other persons interested were not prevented by any rules
of locus standi from appearing and urging their case
before the committees on the bills. (5) On what prin-
ciple the periodical revision of rates and fares should pro-
ceed was a matter which the committee could not deter-
mine. That if it were to be purely arbitrary, and if no
rule were to be laid down to guide the revisers, the power
of revision would amount to a power to confiscate the pro-
perty of the companies; that it was not likely that parlia-
ment would attempt to exercise any such power itself,
still less that it would confer such a power on any
subordinate authority. (6) Absolute limitation of divi-
dend. The conclusion to which the committee arrived
was that such would be impracticable. They state that a
false impression seems to prevail that parliament have
already limited railway dividends to 10 per cent. The
only act which touches the subject is the act of 1844, and
that act is inoperative. But it was not improbable that
railway companies, having regard to the odium which a
very wealthy and profitable monopoly is sure to incur will,
if they continue prosperous, act as though their dividends
were limited, and will find some means of disposing of a
large surplus other than that of largely increased dividend.
(7) Division of profit beyond a certain limit between com-
panies and public. No practical result was come to by

the committee, who stated that the principle of dividing surplus profits between the companies and the public has been adopted in France, but under conditions which illustrate the difficulties which they mentioned. The difficulty of determining the sum available for dividend is met by an inspection and interference with the accounts of the companies, which would scarcely be practicable here; and the difficulty of selecting rates for reduction, although without comparison less than it would be here, was avoided by abandoning reduction altogether, and paying half the surplus profit into the national exchequer. (8) With respect to new classification of rates, the committee considered it desirable that the companies should be compelled to adopt as between themselves and the public the clearing-house classification, and to adopt their statutory rates to it; but it further appeared that the clearing-house classification was altered from time to time to meet the varying wants and circumstances of trade, and it seemed therefore desirable that there should be some power of making corresponding alterations in the classification adopted for the public. The exercise of this power the committee thought might be made subject to the approval of the commission, the appointment of which they recommended. (9) Publication of rates. The recommendation of the committee can be seen in the 14th section of the act, p. 27. (10) Consolidation of acts was, the committee considered, no easy task to insure accuracy, or that no one was prejudiced by the operation. The committee were however of opinion that, whether consolidated or not, the acts relating to each company should be deposited at the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, with such an index as would enable the public to refer to their contents. (11) Workmen's trains. Although the committee thought there were great difficulties in the way of imposing general obligations by statute, it was possible that in certain large towns, as well as in London, circumstances might exist

which called for special provision. The committee therefore recommended that the municipal authorities of all large towns should be authorised to require the companies having stations in such towns to run workmen's trains at given hours and stated prices, on the condition that they, the municipal authority, guarantee to the companies a certain income from such trains, which guarantee they should have power to make good out of the rates. (12) Future amalgamation and "districting." The committee made some lengthened observations on this subject, the practical result of which was that each case ought to be dealt with on its own basis. (13) Construction of branch lines. The committee thought that any rate-paying district might out of their rates construct the branch required by them; and the railway company of the district should be compelled to receive and forward the traffic, and possibly also to work the railway; but in the present state of local government it would be difficult to work out any such scheme as this. (14) Interchange of traffic: through rates and running powers. The conclusions of the committee are embodied in the 11th section of the act, p. 24. (15) Revision of fares for carrying troops. The committee thought that these fares should be considerably reduced. (16) Additional facilities to post-office are secured by the 18th section of the act, p. 31. (17) New tribunal. The result of the committee's recommendation is the appointment of the present railway commissioners, whose powers are enumerated in four to ten of the sections of the act inclusive, p. 4.

To their report the Committee append conclusions, thirtyone in number, the substance of which has been previously stated, and which are too numerous to quote or recapitulate. Some of them are embodied in the Act of last session. Under that Act (The Regulation of Railways Act, 1873), the Railway Commissioners are appointed. To them are transferred the powers previously administered by the Court of Common Pleas under sections

2 & 3 of the Act of 1854. The Commissioners also obtain further powers, including some hitherto possessed by the Board of Trade. Besides administering the Act of 1854, an important part of the duties of the commissioners will be arbitration, which is provided for in the present Act. As the Select Committee suggest, it is not improbable that in future private bills, reference to the commissioners will be substituted for arbitration.

Under the Act the Commissioners have issued general orders, which remain in force unless disapproved in whole or in part by either House of Parliament within two months after they have laid them before the House. This the Commissioners are bound to do immediately after the making thereof, if Parliament be then sitting, or if not, within seven days after the then next meeting of Parliament. The Commissioners have also issued a regulation and directions as to working agreements, for which see p. 202. The Act which received the royal assent on 21st July last is to continue in force for five years after its passing, and thenceforth until the end of the then next session of Parliament.

As yet the Commissioners have not had many cases on which to adjudicate, and the following is a report of those which have come before them.

The Corporation of Dover v. the South-Eastern and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Companies, 28th November, 1873. (Before Sir F. Peel and Mr. Macnamara.)

Sometime previously the Commissioners, upon the application of the Town Council of Dover, granted a joint summons against the South-Eastern Railway Company and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, calling upon them to show cause why a writ of injunction should not issue against them requiring them to desist from giving any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to the passengers and traffic between London and Margate, Ramsgate, and Deal over those between London and Dover. The complaint then alleged by the Corporation was that passengers were

conveyed to Margate and Ramsgate at third class and ordinary fares, while passengers to Dover by the same trains, separating at Canterbury and Ashford, were charged express fares; that there was exceptional third-class accommodation for Margate and Ramsgate, and none for Dover; and also that preferential rates were charged in the one case at the expense of the other for the conveyance of meat, poultry, and other articles. The application was for a summons calling upon the Corporation of Dover, to show as a preliminary to the hearing of the case, that the Railway and Canal Traffic Act gives the commissioners jurisdiction to deal with fares where they are within the maximum the companies are authorised to charge by their special Acts.

Mr. Harrison, for the London, Chatham, and Dover Company, said the main question which would arise was whether the case was one which came within the 2nd section of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854. There had already been cases decided in the Court of Common Pleas, and it would be contended that that court would have had no jurisdiction, and that it never was intended that the fares charged by railway companies should be interfered with so long as the companies kept themselves within the maximum fares which they were authorised to charge by statute.

Sir F. Peel pointed out that the complaint referred also to exceptional difficulties in the way of third-class passengers seeking to get to Dover and to exceptional difficulties attaching to the people of Dover and to particular trains.

Mr. Harrison quoted cases of the Caterham Junction Railway and of Jones against the Great Eastern Railway Company. In the latter the passengers were charged from Harwich to London a less sum than those from Colchester to London. This was objected to on the ground of undue preference, but it was held not to be a case in point, and the summons was dismissed.

Mr. Macnamara said the case did not go against the jurisdiction of the Court. On the contrary, it was heard, and dismissed on its merits.

Mr. Harrison admitted that that was so, but added that the Court of Common Pleas, when it decided that the case did not come within the 2nd section of the Act, practically decided that they had no jurisdiction in the matter.

Sir F. Peel inquired what was the exact question of law upon which the railway companies asked the opinion of the Commissioners ?

Mr. Harrison said the point was whether any interference with fares came within the powers of the Commissioners, seeing that it was not within the 2nd section of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854. The 13th section said that complaints might be