tion, to which a few shares in the intended line-if no land lies in its way to be benefited-are equally dangerous? At all events a system which exposes their judicial health to such formidable attacks cannot be good. Besides, the manner in which the cases are managed before the Houses are anything but what they ought to be to insure justice, as W. C. F. has shown in our last number. Looking at whatever side of it we please, it is clear that the present plan is bad, and open to improvement. Now it has occurred to me, that if these cases were referred to the ordinary courts of law, before our judges and a common jury, the chances of a speedy and just decision would be much greater. Increasing the number of judges would enable them to despatch the business before them so as to attend to matters of this sort, and particularly if a little use was made of the long vacation. An augmentation of salary would of course be needful, which might very well be paid by the Government charging each company that came for a bill a certain sum, either per day, week, or otherwise, so as to save the public purse. The juries too might be paid, but not directly by the companies. Judges being independent of all parties, compelled to attend from the duties of office, able from their education to meet and control the manoeuvres of counsel, and having that grand desideratum for the despatch of business, unity of action, would in my opinion get through more cases in a week than a committee would in a Session. And if they were inclined to peculate, the risk of place, with the controling influence of the public press, and the impossibility of screening themselves by throwing the sin upon a body as in committees, would be powerful checks. If it be urged that ordinary juries would be incompetent-which I am by no means satisfied of, under the guidance of a judge-let them be composed of men of science and engineers, who should be liberally paid after decision by a tax on the company, ordered by the Parliament or judge. And let these too be amenable to public opinion by the publication of their several reasons for their decision, having previously made these jurors as honest as possible by severe oaths, embracing the past, present, and future tenses, of having no direct or indirect interest, connexion, or benefit from the proposed measure, its friends, or advocates. If all such proceedings were published six months prior to their being brought under the notice of Parliament there would be time for investigation; and if the cases were then finally disposed of before the whole House, there would probably be but little reason to complain hereafter of haste or want of justice. We should by this means save much valuable time to the members of the Houses, and

the waste probably of some millions on injudicious schemes, which a few years may show to be so worthless as to compel the construction of better.

On the third point no person can doubt your Grace's intentions are honourable to all parties. Fearful of the consequences of overgrown monopolies, you are anxious to put some salutary restrictions to these bodies riding, as you apprehend, roughshod over the public; and you are anxious to do this before they become too powerful to be ruled. Every honest and rightminded man must be satisfied that such are needful; nor is there a company got up on honourable principles that would object to any reasonable measure, in which a due regard is paid to their own interests, and a proper consideration is had to all the circumstances of their situation and risk. But in common fairness these must be taken into account. No man knows better than yourself that these works, if they are at all likely to be beneficial to the nation-which every one in his sober senses admits—will form a great and brilliant æra in its prosperity. Nay, my Lord Duke, permit me to ask you if they have not been a Godsend towards the preservation of this country, by giving a new impetus to industry and trade, and saving us from that anarchy and confusion to which distress was fast hurrying a large portion of our population? With all these advantages staring us in the face what have the Government done to promote railways? Have they done a single thing? I am not conscious of one. Have they removed a single impediment? Not to my knowledge; but they have raised several. Have they contributed a single farthing? Rather I believe, by the intolerable and vexatious oppositions permitted in passing the bills, have been the cause of spending many hundred thousands, which, like another national debt, will prey to the end of time on the vitals of public industry. But if no active measures have been taken in favour of railways, one might at least have supposed silent encouragement would have been given them. Facts however tell a lamentably different tale. What has occasioned the panic which has for some time existed in railways and deterred men from investing their money in these undertakings, but the premature and injudicious interference attempted in their presumed profits, which however we are happy to see the good sense of the Commons has rejected? Premature it certainly is to an absurd extent to talk of curtailing profits seven years before they come. And nationally considered, nothing surely can be more injudicious than to discourage men from doing that which will benefit the country, and which the Government

will not do. As to the companies themselves, it amounts in my opinion to downright injustice. All that the public have a right to expect are economy and despatch, which must be amply proved before a bill can be obtained. Presuming these things secured, what right have the public to go further and claim a copartnership in profits, without advancing a farthing of capital or risking a single shilling? What a glorious doctrine it would be to set up in trade, that a man, besides rendering an article very cheap and much accommodating his customers, should be obliged to divide the fruits of his industry among them into the bargain! Perfectly parallel is the case in railways. The cheap article is the carriage, and the accommodation the despatch in transit. But it will be worth our while to inquire into the probable value of those profits the legislature is so anxious to divide among the public. For this purpose we will take one of those cases which promises the irresistible profit of 20 per cent. Now we all know, speaking generally, that paper profits of this kind are, like the rumoured fortunes of young ladies, about three times the reality. But to be very liberal, we will suppose they are only double, which will reduce the 20 to 10 per cent. Again, if we regard the trouble, difficulty, risk, &c. of procuring a bill, the chances of getting and losing it are about equal; so that the 10 per cent. now comes down to 5. Moreover it may fairly be estimated from five to seven years before the line comes into profitable working, if it be of any length and any difficulty. About 1 per cent. more may be taken off on this account, which will reduce the probable value of the 20 per cent. speculation to 4 per cent., a great sum indeed for the public to envy, or the Government to interfere with.

If, however, the public must be partners in matters in which they have done nothing, advanced nothing, nor risked anything; if

"They soundly sleep the night away,

And just do nothing all the day,'

and yet will participate in the good things of other people's industry, why then let them be partners in the strict sense of the word, and let them share the loss as well as the gains of companies. Guarantee but six per cent. to the shareholders generally, and I will venture to assert there will be few companies, amidst all their golden promises of 20, 30, or 50 per cent. profit, that will not suffer the public to take every par ticle of the surplus, and cordially thank them for their kindness. But to claim a portion of the good and to bear no part of the bad savours, my Lord Duke, of avaricious madness,

not of sober reason; of Turkish tyranny, not of English justice. Interfere not, let me beseech you, with these projects now, unless you wish to crush them in their infancy, and to deprive the country of their benefits. If some parties make a good hit, let them enjoy it; they deserve it, for their spirit and judgement; if others make a bad, let them bear it. As to legislating for a limitation of their profits, it will answer no good purpose; it will end in disappointment to the public and robbery to the shareholders. Hundreds of ways will be contrived to defeat the object: office on office will be created, and all beyond the legal profits of the concern, instead of going to the shareholders or advantaging the public, will be eaten up by idle drones and useless hangers on. Who knows but we may by-and-by see some noble duke, instead of wishing to succeed our brave Constable of Dover Castle, trying for the Constableship of some opulent railway; the MasterGeneral of the Ordnance resigning, to become Master-General of the Traffic; and the Commander-in-chief of His Majesty's forces turned into Commander-in-chief of the Locomotives, with a salary as much above his former as the power of a steam-engine is above that of a popgun? It is, indeed, impossible to tell what would be the end of an injudicious attempt to limit the profits of railway companies. Turn the profits from the pockets of their rightful owners, the shareholders, and they will assuredly go to some worse purpose, but never to the advantage of the public. If Your Grace wishes to benefit the public and secure the shareholders, it must, in my opinion, be by some such simple rule as the following, namely, never to grant a bill unless it can be shown that the time of transit will not exceed a half of the present by the road; secondly, that the expense of carriage of any goods claimed, or expected, to be carried, shall not exceed two thirds of what it now costs; thirdly, that the probable profits to the shareholders shall not be less than ten per cent.; and lastly, that whenever two thirds of the persons expected to be benefited by the railway show, either through mismanagement of the directors or otherwise, that they have not that benefit they ought to have from the line, either an entirely new set of directors shall be chosen or a new line permitted to be made. By the first two we should, it appears to me, give the public all they have a right to, and crush in the bud those schemes that will not bear investigation; by the third we shall protect the shareholders; and by the last, keep the rein needfully tight over the directors, to which none that are honest will object.

I ought now to discuss the fourth point; but as I am no novelist, and can only draw my characters from real life, it is a subject on which I could not touch without giving pain to some truly honourable individuals unfortunately mixed up with others, who, if they had had their deserts, ought long since to have been banished from this country, and from the society of all honourable men. Besides, I am in hopes that in one case the parties themselves will see what is due to their own fair characters, and not permit a little surface talent, which is always the property of a villain, to keep among them one with whom they can never associate but with disgrace, even if he does not at last much more seriously involve them. In another case I hope the parties, however they may have acted before, will in future act honourably and honestly, or they may find, to their astonishment, a few little tricks laid bare which they think none but their own snug coterie knows, and which will inevitably frustrate all their future manoeuvres. To a third I would recommend an instant and thorough purge; for if drastic medicines are good in the body of a man, they will be equally so in the body of a committee; and I can assure the parties I allude to, that they can get rid of a few ulcerated members without any loss to themselves or their object. It will not be my wish to enter into these matters, but if I do I shall proceed fearlessly and boldly. In the mean time I remain, very respectfully,

Your Grace's obedient humble Servant,

THE EDITOR.

REVIEW OF RAILWAY BOOKS.

"Principal Elements in the Comparison of different Lines of Railway." From "The Means of Comparing the respective Advantages of different Lines of Railway, &c., by JOHN MACNEILL, Civil Engineer, M.R.I.A., F.R.A.S., &c.” IN a former number we noticed this useful little volume. The following article, which is on a matter of considerable interest, will better display the clear and simple style in which the book is written, than the most elaborate description we could give.

"The interest of the country is, in this respect; 1st, The establishment of a very rapid mode of transport,-a consi